Re: Letter from Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, Federal Trade Commission

RE: Your questions.

US.
1. Makes no difference ­ the setting of DNT:1 is valid
2. See above
3. See above

EU.
1. Makes no difference ­ the setting of DNT:1 is valid
2. See above
3. See above

It's not the default setting that is on trial here, its the issue of whether
or not the server can accurately determine the intent of the user. DNT is
binary and therefore lacks sufficient context to make a correct
determination. 

Therefor if more information is required the server MUST send a response
back to the client requesting it. To simply ignore the header is NOT a
viable option ­ the spec needs more context.


Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752


From:  Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org>
Date:  Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:58 PM
To:  Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>, "'Delaney, Elizabeth A'"
<EDELANEY@ftc.gov>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Cc:  "'Vandecar, Kim'" <KVANDECAR@ftc.gov>, "'Thompson, Kimberly M.'"
<kthompson@ftc.gov>
Subject:  RE: Letter from Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, Federal Trade
Commission

> There are a few unique scenarios we may want to review for any exceptions or
> variations to this position.  Do any of the following make a difference?
>  
> US
> 1.       Users updates  their browser.  (I am unclear if IE 10 will be
> backward compatible with Windows 7)
> 
> 2.       User buys a new PC (Windows 8 and IE 10 pre-installed)
> 
> 3.       User Upgrades their PC and purchases Windows 8 with IE 10)
> 
>  
> EU ­ impact with the browser selection screen
> 1.       Users updated their browser.  (I am unclear if IE 10 will be backward
> compatible with Windows 7)
> 
> 2.       User buys a new PC (Windows 8 and selects IE 10)
> 
> 3.       User Upgrades their PC and purchases Windows 8 and select IE 10)
> 
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From: Peter Cranstone [mailto:peter.cranstone@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 3:42 PM
> To: Delaney, Elizabeth A; 'public-tracking@w3.org'
> Cc: Vandecar, Kim; Thompson, Kimberly M.
> Subject: Re: Letter from Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, Federal Trade
> Commission
>  
> 
> Elizabeth,
> 
>  
> 
> RE: "Microsoft not consumers will be exercising the choice as to what signal
> the browser will send".
> 
>  
> 
> I have to disagree. Microsoft made a public announcement of the browser
> setting. I knew that when I installed the software. The Microsoft default was
> my choice when I installed the software, and they also provided me with a way
> to change my choice if need be.
> 
>  
> 
> RE: "But it does not solve the fact that the recipients of the signal must
> still choose to honor the signal and refrain from tracking consumers and/or
> collecting data about them".
> 
>  
> 
> In essence it does solve the fact. A server as per the spec that is said to be
> honoring the DNT setting MUST refrain from tracking consumers and/or
> collecting data about them. What the spec does NOT resolve is the following:
> 
>  
> 
> If said server receives a DNT:1 setting that the server believes is coming
> from an invalid browser (by the way there is no such thing as an invalid DNT
> setting because it's binary) then it MAY chose to ignore that setting.
> 
>  
> 
> The dilemma is now apparent. The user has expressed his/her choice by sending
> valid DNT setting ­ the server has now also made a choice, to not honor it.
> Therefore it MUST respond to the user indicating it's status.
> 
>  
> 
> The current spec reads with the word "MAY" respond. This is inadequate and
> opens up a wealth of legal responses all of which are not good. DNT is binary
> ­ if you see the 1 setting and you support honoring that setting then you MUST
> do as it says. If you lack sufficient context about "WHO" made that setting
> (Microsoft, Me or other 3rd party software) then you MUST request more data
> from the user.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Peter
> ___________________________________
> Peter J. Cranstone
> 720.663.1752
> 
>  
> 
> From: "Delaney, Elizabeth A" <EDELANEY@ftc.gov>
> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:11 AM
> To: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Cc: "Vandecar, Kim" <KVANDECAR@ftc.gov>, "Thompson, Kimberly M."
> <kthompson@ftc.gov>
> Subject: Letter from Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, Federal Trade Commission
> Resent-From: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:31:06 +0000
> 
>  
>> 
>> Dear Members of the W3C Tracking Protection Working Group:
>>  
>> Please see the attached letter from Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch.    Please
>> let us know if you have any questions.  Thank you,
>>  
>>  
>> Elizabeth Delaney
>> Attorney Advisor
>> Office of Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch
>> Federal Trade Commission
>> 600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
>> Washington, DC  20580
>> 202-326-2903
>>  
>>