- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:53:17 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Brooks, On Monday 04 June 2012 10:52:31 Dobbs, Brooks wrote: > IMHO it sets a very dangerous precedent (no matter where you side > on the desirability of high adoption of DNT: 1) to say 1) the > specification is founded in reflecting preference and, > simultaneously, 2) default settings can reflect this > preference. Isn't this argued very differently with respect to > default browser settings implying consent for cookies in the EU? Rob (Article 29 WP) suggested to have a selection screen at first startup. After all the noise about the defaults, can we assume that using a certain browser means sending DNT;1? Again, personally, I do not believe that you can solve the issue whether the server has to comply to some signal with client side obligations. I still think that any DNT signal (apart from those injected by third parties and where there is no exception mechanism possible and no user choice) is valid, but that a server MUST be able to decline a user's preference (e.g. coming with a DNT signal into a personalized service that requires login). Sending back NACK (in some form) is transparent. But this would mean that the brand "DNT" isn't necessarily meaning "privacy enhancing". A browser could react on the NACK and be privacy enhancing etc.. I think depending on which way we chose we'll get entirely different discussions Rigo
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 13:53:55 UTC