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

Jonathan,

Are you referring to the one ad targeting company that relies on digital fingerprinting and desperately needs DNT to provide some level of user control over their current business practices?  There may be a few outliers but please understand they represent less than 1% of traffic on the Internet.  If that’s your goal, so be it.

- Shane

From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:11 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Rigo Wenning; public-tracking@w3.org; Roy T. Fielding; Tamir Israel
Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

Shane,

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a standard no one in industry will implement."  Earlier today a working group member from an ad targeting company suggested they would implement the W3C Do Not Track standard if it included honoring Internet Explorer's default implementation.

Jonathan

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
We already are by discussing elements of a standard no one in industry will implement. You're taking us down that road again...

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:59 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Tamir Israel
Subject: Re: Today's call: summary on user agent compliance

On Tuesday 12 June 2012 16:30:21 Roy T. Fielding wrote:
DNT is not the only consent mechanism. Right now it doesn't
even qualify as one. Inside the tracking status resource you
will see a link to a control resource. That resource is a
consent mechanism. It doesn't depend on DNT. It doesn't
disappear even if the DNT field is ignored. And that's just
one of many possible consent mechanisms other than DNT that
a site might use in order to comply with regional laws.

You could implement P3P that had already that opt-out URI 10 years
ago... Roy, are you suggesting we repeat history?

Rigo