- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 21:40:05 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org, ifette@google.com
- Cc: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Ian, On Friday 04 May 2012 09:48:36 Ian Fette wrote: > You haven't made it all clear here why an in-browser exception would be > preferable to an out-of-band exception. You could "recover" the user > either way. I do believe that recovering the user will be _much_ easier with DNT than with anything else. "Out-of-band" means "do your own" while with DNT we try to pool our knowledge and resources to develop something that works. Including the knowledge of people like Ed and Rob who are in a cooperative mode here. I do believe that we may give publishers a chance to open up the blocking tools again if we give them a decent communication channel to the user and reasonable and simple options. Additionally, out-of-band typically falls back into legalese and documents only. If you go down that route, the ambient conflict between advertisement earnings and consumer protection will end up in things like the EU Art. 5.3 and nobody knows how to implement. Instead I want to have a solution where the techies were at the table and the integration into web architecture is sound and there are no terrible bumps. IMHO, either there will be a solution in the browser or no workable solution at all with a lot of bumps for the industry and the consumers alike. The entire debate will go back into legal only with a lot of logic and technical breaks. There is a window of opportunity we have, but this window can close. In this case, we are back in arms-race of blocking vs tracking and legal pressure and enforcement. There are some "out-of-band" systems in niches that work. We should not destroy those. But I hear "out-of-band" way too often. No clue? -> out-of- band! Let us try harder to get something that works. But the above is rather a personal explanation/opinion I have. Rigo
Received on Friday, 4 May 2012 19:41:25 UTC