- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:28:09 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>, Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>, "ifette@google.com" <ifette@google.com>, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>, "JC Cannon (Microsoft)" <jccannon@microsoft.com>
Shane, Kimon, On Thursday 14 June 2012 16:47:03 Shane Wiley wrote: > I’ve used a few others and they appears to do the same so I’m > confused as to what real-world identity provider scenario someone > is considering where consent wasn’t already obtained? I confirm that we agreed that the out-of-band agreement will trump the DNT:1 signal. We also agreed that the service has to signal this to the client. I guess, what Rob is trying to achieve is to say, even in this context, a service could offer the choice of stopping to track and only use information for the login/authentication purpose. This could be the meaning of DNT:1 if the Service sends ACK in a login/authentication context. If you're looking for medical information in a login context, you don't want your login provider to spawn that to your insurance. I think this is a very legitimate use case. The service could say: "yes, I see your point" and send ACK instead of "out-of-band". We are just defining switches. People will decide whether they switch stuff on or off or provide a switch at all. Rigo
Received on Friday, 15 June 2012 08:28:45 UTC