- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:55:39 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Tamir, DNT is a communication channel, not a privacy law. If a country wants to prohibit services from refusing a DNT:1 header, they have to create the appropriate rule that coerces the service into a certain behavior. W3C does not have the status to create such coercive rules. Ian Fette already said: Do you want to know whether they ignore you or be left in the fog? There are multiple ways to react on a refusal to service DNT:1. One being to fake the UA string. My browser has even a per-site configuration to circumvent site designs that are doing stupid browser sniffing things. The rest is wording and making of compliance classes in the TPE Specification. Our problem is the use of "DNT compliant" as a marketing term for better privacy. A conformance section could say e.g. that servers responding with NACK can claim to be "DNT Protocol compliant" but not "DNT compliant". Rigo On Wednesday 20 June 2012 23:34:28 Tamir Israel wrote: > I'm not quite sure that allowing servers to reject DNT-1s > unilaterally deemed non-compliant will enhance trust in the > standard. Users may well be quite frustrated to find that some > servers (but not others) simply do not respect their signals. > Also, many had mentioned a desire to avoid reinstating the pop-up > mania of earlier days. I think this would further that mania.
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 14:56:11 UTC