- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 09:56:02 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
This is not true. If the origin server has received a DNT;0 header, we also assume that the user has given his/her consent to be tracked. This goes way beyond what would be the situation without header. Rigo On Monday 14 May 2012 21:17:10 Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > tracking-ISSUE-147: Transporting Consent via the Exception / DNT > mechanisms [Global Considerations] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/147 > > Raised by: Matthias Schunter > On product: Global Considerations > > >From my perspective, the current mechanisms of DNT (exceptions and DNT;0) > >only exempt a site from the constraints defined in the compliance spec. > I.e., once a user has granted an exception, all things are back to > 'normal' and the usual legal constraints apply. As a consequence, after > having obtained an exception, enterprises are back to the situation > without DNT. > > I'd like to trigger the discussion to what extend we want to and can > piggyback consent on top of the DNT exception and DNT;0 mechanisms. The > question are as follows: 1. "A user has granted an exception to a site, > for what purposes can the data now be used by whom?" 2. How can we shape > the permitted purposes/parties to fit normal user expectations?
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 07:56:31 UTC