- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 09:14:41 +0100
- To: Kevin Smith <kevsmith@adobe.com>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Kevin, On Thursday 08 March 2012 14:34:58 Kevin Smith wrote: > Yes - which is the only important part of exceptions, because again, the > exception exists because the 1st party wants to know what content to show > the user. The 3rd party has no value by itself. It is only included to > provide value to the 1st party. If the 1st party cannot make the content > decision, then there is no reason to request an exception - it will treat > the user as DNT:1 and 3rd parties are completely irrelevant. I agree, this is important. How can we solve that use-case without creating a privacy incident? Because so far, as you remarked, the service can't see whether I block the http requests to third parties. This has numerous probs, but we must overcome them to create the right incentives. Because there are two possible outcomes if it works: 1/ Services use this to install paywalls for those not looking at very privacy-invasive advertisement. 2/ If in scenario 1/ users will go away instead, we will see services looking for reasonable monetizing third parties that are acceptable to users. This looks like a market to me. And markets are always best to find out the optimum unless they are seen to be defunct (like for apartment rental in France ;). But we can't know if this market is defunct if we haven't tried it out. Again, difficult. Your take, Kevin.. ? Rigo
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 08:15:07 UTC