- From: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:32:55 -0400
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
DNT was proposed because of the problems with the existing industry opt-out process and the insufficiency of blocking cookies. Giving all "compliant" third parties the ability to force users to install a new browser or stop surfing the web are hardly legitimate choices, and will not result in a workable, reliable DNT system. The problem of defaults should be addressed by adding new affirmative obligations on user agents. If a third party believes that a UA is setting an expression of user preference without user permission, they can bring legal action against the UA. But as a user, I don't want unknown third parties tracking me in spite of my DNT signal because they didn't like my browser's interface. Justin Brookman Director, Consumer Privacy Center for Democracy& Technology 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 tel 202.407.8812 fax 202.637.0969 justin@cdt.org http://www.cdt.org @CenDemTech @JustinBrookman On 6/8/2012 3:00 PM, Shane Wiley wrote: > Tamir, > > The user has many options at that point: > - Switch to a compliant UA and set DNT > - Use the existing opt-out approach > - Block cookies (in whole or selectively) > - Stop viewing the free content provided on that site > > What signifies consent in your view today in the absence of a DNT standard? > > - Shane > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org] > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 11:57 AM > To: Tamir Israel > Cc: Shane Wiley; Jeffrey Chester; Ninja Marnau; ifette@google.com; Bjoern Hoehrmann; David Singer; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) > Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance > > On Friday 08 June 2012 14:49:23 Tamir Israel wrote: >> I truly apologize for belaboring this issue, but once the DNT-1 >> signal is ignored, there is no longer an available opt-out >> mechanism for the user to employ in order to express their >> preference. So regulators will then have to decide whether the >> mere presence of notice that tracking is occurring offers a >> sufficiently meaningful consent mechanism. > You found the hole! I have to think about it. > > Rigo > > >
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 19:33:26 UTC