- From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:14:43 -0400
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- CC: public-tracking@w3.org, Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Rigo -- designing the spec in a manner that lets servers expressly invalidate a DNT-1 within the context of the spec seems a bad idea. I'd actually prefer to leave it as is (not necessarily in a fog, but leave it to the server's discretion whether they think they can ignore a valid-seeming signal or not instead of giving them the right to capacity to invalidate a signal). Unless you want to take the further (and highly complicated) step of providing a mechanism for UAs to confirm 'non-compliant' DNT signals with the user and respond with a re-affirmation.... Best, Tamir On 6/21/2012 10:55 AM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > 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 15:15:58 UTC