RE: diff of TPE editing since the FPWD


The UK ICO website is another example but none of these are as elegant as some of the ones I've seen that will hopefully become public soon (and others I've only heard of but haven't seen yet).

I would again suggest we limit the purpose and scope of DNT to the hardening of user choice with respect to cross-site tracking.  I respect and understand the appeal of the continued attempts to expand the scope of DNT to meet a much broader set of general privacy issues as you've suggested...but continue to suggest the working group focus on a smaller set of deliverables.  

Attempting to create a utilitarian legal vehicle out of DNT is a slippery slope and will endlessly delay consensus.

Let's eat this apple one bite at a time versus attempting to swallow the entire apple in a single bite.  :-)

Thank you,
- Shane  

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 1:35 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc:; Ed Felten
Subject: Re: diff of TPE editing since the FPWD


On Monday 16 January 2012 13:33:04 Shane Wiley wrote:
> Thank for the explanation but I would continue to caution you and the rest
> of the W3C that attempting to leverage DNT for ePrivacy Directive
> compliance is not an appropriate path and will result in the worst case
> scenario for consumers - endless pop-up dialogue boxes (not to mention the
> fact that each country has taken slightly different approaches to
> transposing the ePrivacy Directive which alters available consent
> approaches).  

Do you mean the example website from David Naylor?

There is another one, but I lost the URI. 

I have to reiterate: I am NOT talking about compliance to legislation. I'm 
talking about creating a tool that allows for better integration into a 
certain legal framework. This is _very_ different.

> There are far more elegant solutions for gaining consumer
> consent and cookie management either in production or in development.

I hope you don't mean the above. If not, can you elaborate? URI's?
The fun sites above rather demonstrate that people are desperate to find 
solutions. IMHO DNT is one of the solutions.

The intended solution will actually _help_ you collect data. Sometimes I 
wonder whether the trenches are already so deep that people don't see their 
own advantage anymore.
> I hope we can continue to focus DNT as a method to expand 3rd party data
> collection and use transparency and to harden user choices and controls in
> that regard.

DNT shouldn't be a method to expand 3rd party data collection IMHO. I think we 
all started this effort to gain _more_ privacy. DNT should be a method to allow 
users to express their preferences. Recording and ACK this preference can 
possibly be seen as a way to come to a consent without those multitude of pop 
ups and things the industry is fearing. And I do not believe we can revert EU 
legislation from here. But we can try to be useful.

> Side Note - Yahoo! is a global organization operating in over 50 countries -
> with users from far more.  My role and my perspective in the W3C working
> group is likewise global.

Then you'll appreciate the "create once, play everywhere" that is the goal 
here. And a mere focus on 3rd party data collection practices is not doing the 
trick IMHO. This would mean we remain behind our ambitions.



Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2012 21:29:00 UTC