W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > January 2012

(unknown charset) Re: tracking-ISSUE-105: Response header without request header? [Tracking Preference Expression (DNT)]

From: (unknown charset) Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:00:40 +0100
Message-ID: <4F1457B8.5050400@zurich.ibm.com>
To: (unknown charset) John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
CC: (unknown charset) public-tracking@w3.org
Hi All,

I gave this another thought and I now had the impression that SHOULD
may be sufficient. A wording like:
  If a site receives a  DNT;1 request header,
  then it SHOULD send a DNT response header.
(header details defined elsewhere)

1. In order to be compliant, a site needs to satisfy the compliance
and DNT specs
2. A  site that is compliant with above wording honors a DNT=1 request
   but may not send a corresponding acknowledgement (for whatever reason)

The result would be that a site sufficiently protects privacy
(according to the compliance spec) while not advertising the fact.
This will make users assume the worst (i.e., that DNT=1 was not honored).

While this is not optimal, it at least ensures that the site provides
more privacy than promised which I believe to be OK from a privacy

A benefit of SHOULD is that sites could improve their data
collection/retention/usage first to satisfy the compliance spec and
then later do further upgrades to provide transparency/notice. An
example would be a site that never stores anything while ignoring DNT.
Similar to today's practice that privacy policies usually over-state
the potential uses of the collected data.

What do you think?


On 12/20/2011 9:58 PM, John Simpson wrote:
> Agree that if request header is DNT=1, then a site MUST send a
> response header to be compliant.
Received on Monday, 16 January 2012 17:01:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:30 UTC