- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 17:53:56 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org, rob@blaeu.com
Rob, On Friday 04 May 2012 00:05:38 Rob van Eijk wrote: > Explicit/explicit gives Controllers the opportunity to signal which 3rd > parties are processors. Because the controller determines the purpose and > means, controller is responsible for valid consent in the EU. I think that explicit/explicit allows to determine the number of controllers. For processors You would use "same-party": [ "example.com", "example_vids.net", "example_stats.com" ] to indicate them. Because from a DNT point of view, a controller and her processors are one bucket-entity. Here DNT may serve as a consent mechanism also for the first party. (An optional beneficial use, an enabler in EU, not DNT for first parties in the US) [...] > > Use case [B]: a DNT:0 signal to service providers, not being processors, > but as a result controllers themselves or in some cases joint controller. This is the case I have in mind. To monetize the content, the site has P 1-4 but at least wants to have P1 and P2 to receive DNT;0 > It could be useful, but I haven't given it a lot of thought. The question for me is: 1/ Self determination means I can send DNT;0 to P1-3 and DNT;1 to P4. The normal shortcut would be "*" meaning P1-4 2/ "*" alone is not a list of controllers. The consent would be for an undefined object that changes dynamically over time. Is that missing determination of controllers at communication time a problem for the consent? > My > assumption for DNT:0 to be useful in this scenario is that the browser > reflects user consent. This implies that the user has made an informed > choice, preferably in the install/update flow of the browser to use DNT > technology as a granular consent expression mechanism. This is the goal if we want to make DNT in any way useful for the EU market. Rigo
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 15:54:21 UTC