- From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:41:01 -0600
- To: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>
- CC: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CC074993.3D4D%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Chris, You're now in a circular argument. Step 1. Determine if UA is valid or Invalid. (Impossible to do) Step 2. Determine if you want to respond to an invalid UA (see above) A browser is compliant if it sends a DNT:1 ¡© it's the only sane way to look at things. If the server decides NOT to honor the DNT setting, then it MUST respond to the user that intent. That's what a protocol does, it communicates. It's the current "lack of server side communication" that is causing all the problems. So I would say that it definitely needs to be talked about now vs. later. Peter ___________________________________ Peter J. Cranstone 720.663.1752 From: Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:22 AM To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com> Cc: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org> Subject: Re: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice > En route to Seattle now, so we can talk about this later if need be. > > The Online Publishers Association is opposed to 4c. Some of our members may > decide to honor the DNT signal regardless of whether the UA is deemed > compliant. If publishers want to go above and beyond the call of duty, then > they should be able to do that. Also, in general, we have all already agreed > that first parties are largely exempt from the restrictions. This would > constitute a new burden for publishers to differentiate between compliant and > non-compliant browsers. > > > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 11:07 AM, "Peter Cranstone" <peter.cranstone@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'd be interested in hearing your comments on the suggested changes to the >> following. >> >> Part III Explicit and Separate User Choice >> <Normative> >> 1. A User Agent must obtain explicit, informed consent to turn on the DNT >> header* >> >> 2. The User Agent must also make available via a link in explanatory text >> where DNT is enabled to provide more detailed information about DNT >> functionality >> >> 3. Any User Agent claiming compliance must have a functional >> implementation of the browser exceptions in this specification >> >> 4. Servers MAY MUST respond to users that their UA is ¡°non-compliant¡± if >> they believe this to be the case >> >> a. User Agents MUST relay Server responses to users to ensure >> transparency >> >> b. Servers SHOULD MUST be prepared to defend why they have reached this >> conclusion >> >> c. Servers that respond to 100% of DNT requests regardless of User Agent >> details ARE NOT compliant with this recommendation >> >> d. Servers MAY MUST offer users additional information through a resource >> link >> >> 5. Efforts to misled users to activate Do Not Track MAY also be seen as >> ¡°non-compliant¡± >> >> *NOTE ¡© The TPWG already agreed on this point >> >> >> >> Peter >> ___________________________________ >> Peter J. Cranstone >> 720.663.1752 >> >> >> From: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net> >> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 8:54 AM >> To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> >> Cc: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice >> Resent-From: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org> >> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:55:56 +0000 >> >>> Thank you for sending this Shane. While there are still some items we would >>> like to see in the two documents that might not be reflected in the current >>> industry proposal, in the spirit of cooperation and advancing the process >>> IAB supports this approach. I look forward to discussing it this week. >>> >>> Mike Zaneis >>> SVP & General Counsel, IAB >>> (202) 253-1466 >>> >>> On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:05 AM, "Shane Wiley" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: >>> >>>> TPWG, >>>> >>>> Please find attached the detailed proposal text we©öll be reviewing tomorrow >>>> afternoon (built upon the proposal outline I provided last week). >>>> >>>> The following individuals, companies, and trade associations contributed to >>>> this proposal: >>>> >>>> Marc Groman & David Wainberg ¡© NAI >>>> Alan Chapell ¡© Chapell & Associates >>>> Heather West, Sean Harvey, & Ian Fette ¡© Google >>>> Shane Wiley ¡© Yahoo! >>>> >>>> There is considerable detail covering numerous topics in this proposal and >>>> therefore it should not be consider an endorsement by all contributors to >>>> all parts of this proposal. That said, all contributors generally agree >>>> with the direction and approach of this document. >>>> >>>> We look forward to further discussion and fielding questions tomorrow >>>> afternoon. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Shane >>>> <Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice - W3C Seattle.docx>
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 15:41:44 UTC