Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

Jonathan, 

I had private exchanges with David about this and I think we are 
talking past each other. You mean one can't brand "We do DNT" into 
consumer's faces and then reject each and every DNT:1 request with 
an NACK-header. And this is a valid point. BTW, your browser can 
react on NACK by starting tor. I would love to see such intelligent 
browsers and browser extensions.

Ian and I mean, on the wire, it is better that you know someone is 
rejecting your DNT preference. 

The problem is the assertion "We do DNT" as a marketing statement. 
As we can define everything, we can also define when we allow people 
to make that statement. Or even make a different (better) statement, 
like "We honor your tracking preference". If you want to make it 
enforceable, you would make a statement like "we honor the W3C 
tracking preference statement". Then I can even enforce it (if I get 
a budget for that). 

But I don't think by sending DNT:1 to some data graveyard from the 
nineties that is still online, you'll get anything honored in 
anyway. And you can't force that either. 

Rigo
P.S. This is actually an instance of the supermarket problem that 
already haunted the PrimeLife and the PRIME project for those who 
know. Those who want to know can contact me off-list.


On Friday 08 June 2012 01:05:00 Jonathan Mayer wrote:
> Ian,
> 
> I'm gravely disappointed to hear you expressing the view, one year
> into this process, that third-party websites might just
> unilaterally renegotiate the W3C's Do Not Track standard
> post-ratification.  That cuts against the cooperative spirit of
> these productive discussions, and I trust it is not Google's
> position.
> 
> At any rate, I believe your view is misguided.  Third-party
> websites are, to be sure, under no binding obligation to comply
> with the W3C's Do Not Track standard.  But there are myriad
> reasons for companies to comply with the W3C specification,
> including growing pressures from users, policymakers, and the
> media.  Moreover, if a company claims to support Do Not Track and
> it doesn't, it'll have to deal with the Federal Trade Commission
> and other law enforcement agencies.  I should hope Google in
> particular appreciates the ramifications of incorrectly claiming
> to comply with a browser's default privacy setting.  It's no
> coincidence that industry participants in the working group have
> a strong preference to develop consensus on this issue.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> On Thursday, June 7, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
> > A site is already under no obligation to conform to DNT. Would
> > you rather have the user be clear that their request is being
> > ignored, or left to wonder?
> > 
> > -Ian
> > 
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann 
<derhoermi@gmx.net (mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net)> wrote:
> > > * Rigo Wenning wrote:
> > > >[...]
> > > 
> > > Are you proposing that saying "I ignore your tracking
> > > preferences" is all it should take to conform to the DNT
> > > specifications? --
> > > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de ·
> > > http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon:
> > > +49(0)160/4415681 (tel:%2B49%280%29160%2F4415681) ·
> > > http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub.
> > > KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 09:20:36 UTC