Re: meaning of DNT 1 and DNT 0 when sent by user agents [ISSUE-78]

I completely agree with you that we should define the meaning of the
DNT:1/DNT:0 in the compliance document not the expression document. I
would much rather not have any normative explanation of what behavior is
associated with on/off/not-sent in the TPE doc. But, if there is a short
blurb, I'd prefer if it were accurate rather than inaccurate.

I think that we've made some good progress on defining the "who" when we
introduced the first/third party definition Jonathan and I worked on,
the group responded positively, and gave some really specific,
constructive suggestions. I hope to be able to incorporate the
suggestions by Monday. What do you think of our progress so far?

Would folks be opposed to cutting the compliance-related summary from
the TPE spec all together?

On 01/13/2012 01:28 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
> Tom, 
> while I like your definitions of DNT:1 and DNT:0, I maintain that the DNT 
> Specification should say that DNT is enabled/disabled/unset. And not saying 
> anything about "First parties not sharing information". 
> The difficult part is IMHO then the definition of scope of the user's DNT-
> declaration. You say "who receives it" This was my initial take to scope it, 
> namely simply by the GET request. People thought that this wouldn't be 
> sufficient. Then we talked about "origins" and first and third parties. 
> So one of the weaknesses of the DNT - definitions is still the exact circle of 
> addressees. We have tried corporation law rules (affiliate), social rules (first, 
> third parties), browser habits (origins), user expectations (theoretic 
> horizon). But as in the real world, if one speaks out, it is difficult to 
> determine for all others what she really meant and to whom he was really 
> talking to. At some point the choice ends up having something arbitrary that 
> best fits the needs and integrates into web architecture. Because once this 
> technology is out, it will create the user expectations we are trying to 
> anticipate. But it may be hard to anticipate the non-existing. 
> IMHO we haven't yet really found a good addressee (or multitude thereof) and 
> should discuss this further. Once we have the addressee, we can discuss about 
> how the preference expression is perceived and what it is supposed to mean. 
> "Supposed to mean" is a topic for the compliance specification IMHO.
> Best, 
> Rigo
> On Thursday 12 January 2012 15:36:48 Tom Lowenthal wrote:
>> Correction: "All parties" in the DNT:0 blurb should be "Both first and
>> third parties". The header only imparts
>> information/permission/preferences to the party receiving it, not to
>> anyone else. That was just sloppy writing on my part.
>> Does anyone have any suggestions for modifications to this? Roy, if we
>> don't get any suggested changes, could you incorporate this before the
>> "let's read it on the plane" document freeze?
>> On 01/12/2012 03:02 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Jan 12, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Tom Lowenthal wrote:
>>>> On 01/10/2012 06:12 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>>> 1	Do not track me across differently-branded sites and do not use
>>>>> previously tracked/obtained behavioral data from other sites to
>>>>> personalize a response.
>>>>> 0	Use of cross-site tracking and personalization has been
>>>>> specifically permitted for this site, as described in section 6.
>>>>> User-agent-managed site-specific exceptions.
>>>> [Section 4, 4.1]
>>>> As mentioned on the call, I was surprised to see this definition of
>>>> DNT:0 positioned as a site-specific exception to a general DNT:1
>>>> preference. I was expecting (and others on the call seemed to assume)
>>>> a
>>>> quite different approach. My understanding is more as follows:
>>>> DNT:1 Tells everyone who receives it that I have a heightened
>>>> preference
>>>> for privacy and against being tracked. First parties mustn't share any
>>>> information about me. Third parties must treat me like someone about
>>>> whom they know nothing, and remember nothing about me later.
>>>> DNT:0 Tells everyone who receives it that I have a preference towards
>>>> a
>>>> personalized service, and consent to tracking. All parties may gather
>>>> data and learn about me and should use that information to improve my
>>>> experience with them.
>>> I have no problem defining it that way if that is how user agents intend
>>> to implement it.  What I wrote is how it is currently implemented,
>>> AFAICT. I agree that the current state isn't as crisp as what you
>>> describe above, for a variety of reasons.
>>> Can we get some input from the other browser vendors?
>>> ....Roy

Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 19:22:58 UTC