- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:19:31 +0200
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On May 21, 2012, at 16:17 , Rigo Wenning wrote: > David, > > Roy is right in saying that we currently do not define what DNT;0 means. > From a US perspective, falling back to the legal default means everything is > permitted. Falling back in the EU would probably be as restrictive as DNT;1 > or even more so. > > Consequently I think we should add a section to describe things that _at > least_ allowed if DNT;0 is sent. This way we do not have to define tracking > entirely, but we state that we expect _at least_ that certain things must be > permitted and are expected to occur. > > This would also somewhat resolve the "informed consent" issue Roy was > raising. > > Rigo OK, got it. There is still a formal difference between "no header sent, our spec. does not apply" and "dnt:0 sent, our spec. defines what that means"; however, it may not be a practical difference > On Monday 21 May 2012 14:43:29 David Singer wrote: >> C: I send DNT:0; I am explicitly stating that I grant you an exception and >> can track me. >> >> At the moment, after an exception grant by the user, we switch from DNT:1 >> to DNT:0, and so I have no way of saying "I ask everyone else not to >> track me, but I am not asking you anything." Instead, we say "I am >> asking you to comply with the behavior defined for DNT:0" (which might >> well be different from no header). >> >> Whether this matters or not, I don't know, but we are a little confused, >> in that the converse of DNT:1 is the absence of a header, not DNT:0, in >> some cases. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 21 May 2012 14:20:42 UTC