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

Question - if a site decides to honor any and all DNT:1 signals, regardless of whether the browser is non-compliant because it set DNT on by default, would the site be in non-compliance?



On Jun 8, 2012, at 5:21 AM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

> 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 11:54:47 UTC