Re: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice

Couple of commentsŠ

The device cannot interpret ­ only the user can make the choice. The client
simple acts as a proxy for the user.

Currently there is no solution to the client being able to transmit that was
there "intent". You could use something like this DNT:1,IY (Intent Yes) But
now you're caught in another loop as vendors install this setting by
default.

The only sane way to solve this dilemma is to use the server and do
something like - 
* Sever sees DNT:1
> * Accepts it as valid ­ business as usual
* Server sees DNT:1
> * Sees is as INVALID, sends a message back to the user asking for additional
> context
> * Client responds, that was my intent, server sets a cookie ­ business as
> usual
The issue will hinge on the word ­ MAY vs. MUST.

Currently the spec calls for a MAY response. Which is another way of saying,
I don't care I'm not doing anything. Change the word to MUST and now all of
a sudden you get a choice AND you get transparency.

Something which everyone has agreed upon is a good thing.



Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752


From:  Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
Date:  Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:19 PM
To:  Chris Pedigo <CPedigo@online-publishers.org>
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
Resent-From:  W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:20:02 +0000

> For those who send them: There needs to be a *separate* process where the
> validity of any device's interpretation and conveyance of the user's intent is
> judged as being in compliance with the spec and in compliance with their
> messaging of that interpretation and conveyance to the user.