- From: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 16:29:23 +0200
- To: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>
- CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org Group WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>
+1 The fact that DNT;0 is only sent after asking the user is important to enable us to piggyback consent onto it. On 21/05/2012 17:23, JC Cannon wrote: > I would expect that DNT;0 would only be sent to domains that have an exception, not all the time. Of course that is dependent on browser implementation. > > JC > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 7:20 AM > To: Rigo Wenning > Cc: Roy T. Fielding; public-tracking@w3.org Group WG > Subject: Re: tracking-ISSUE-147: Transporting Consent via the Exception / DNT mechanisms [Global Considerations] > > > 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 Tuesday, 22 May 2012 14:30:13 UTC