- From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:32:45 -0400
- To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
- CC: "Dobbs, Brooks" <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Hi Peter, On 6/14/2012 9:58 AM, Peter Cranstone wrote: > Is correct. The problem you have is that each time a user changes his/her > settings you have to run through the whole logic again. Which means in > essence you have to track the user to know when they changed the setting > last. What I meant was that if MSIE treats all users in accordance with that dialogue, a second DNT-1 response to a N-ACK will indubitably be a valid expression of user intent not to be tracked. If servers start bringing in external research into the assessment of facially valid signals, then I don't see how we can draw the line at 'the first signal is not a meaningful expression of user intent'. > The issue you do have in your logic is item C) I'm generally OK with being > tracked, please stop bothering me. I think it's redundant because the > tracking choice is binary (1,0). However this is where the Null value > comes in - so C could be c) I don't have a preference - but this then > introduces another point of confusion. It means one thing in Europe (do > not track) and another thing in the US (tracking allowed). So now you have > to determine the users location before setting a cookie to meet the > preference. My a, b & c were merely symbolic and I'm not advocating those specific options, merely trying to demonstrate how an escalation could play out if we start ignoring valid-seeming signals. What I *did* have in mind for the toolbar to essentially direct the user to the DNT mechanism and make it easier for them to make a selection (I'm hearing from you this is not so easy : P). Requiring an election as part of the browser set up process would have similar effect. You raise another interesting point -- what happens if someone actually *prefers* 'unset', leaving it to the whims of evolving domestic norms to decide what is best for them [assuming what 'domestic' means can be determined through coarse geo info : )]?
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 16:34:26 UTC