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

On 6/12/2012 6:12 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> So there you have it, opt-in vs. opt-out. Can you imagine the user 
>> now has a choice. They can download a browser that by default offers 
>> more privacy or they can chose the alternative. The real surprise 
>> comes later when they (the consumer) find out that it’s all optional 
>> for the content provider.
>
> Sending "DNT: 1" does not, in any way, improve privacy.
> It's sole purpose and action is to indicate a user preference.
> It is not a light switch.  It does not turn anything on or off.
> What it does is tell the server something useful: that this user
> has chosen the following preference.  That's all.
>
> The default of whether tracking is enabled or not given the
> absence of a user's expressed preference is determined by
> things entirely outside the scope of the WG: regional laws,
> out-of-band consent mechanisms, user account settings, the
> full moon, and other things that we are not concerned with.
>
> ....Roy

Hi Roy -- surely these decisions are not made in complete ignorance of 
how they will ultimately have to be operationalized? I think it would be 
foolhardy to ignore the existence of regional laws, out-of-band consent 
mechanisms, user account settings, and even the swaying power of the 
full moon to the extent any of these will necessarily form the backdrop 
of implementation.

Best regards,
Tamir