- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 16:46:28 -0800
- To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
- Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group WG <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Mar 6, 2012, at 3:43 PM, John Simpson wrote: > Roy, > > I support your definition of tracking and thank you for offering it. It should be included at least as an option in the next public working draft of the Compliance and Scope spec. > > As you know, you and I have different views about the need for some definitions. I'm a minimalist and behavioralist. If definitions are contentious you simply don't need to go there. A DNT spec need only state how to send the message, how to respond and what the obligations are when the message is received. You don't need a theological or philosophical explanation of why, in my view. > > However, if the WG believes we need to define tracking, then your definition does so in a straight-forward way that is in keeping with user expectations. Thanks John, > I do have clarifying questions: As I read you text it would preclude passive fingerprinting (i.e. IP address + User-Agent logs). Am I correct? Should we specifically call out that practice? Yes. My Tracking definition includes identifying in general, including passive fingerprinting, and the third bullet under mechanisms for performing tracking is a technical description of "fingerprinting". This can be highlighted in the details through a use-case that specifically talks about fingerprinting. Cheers, ....Roy
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 00:46:49 UTC