W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > November 2012

Re: ISSUE-187 - some thoughts on using javascript

From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:08:18 +0100
To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4e2778d9c7ab5063cd012eb54d71646e@xs4all.nl>
On 2012-11-08 20:54, Vinay Goel wrote:
> I'd question whether the consumer is aware that its UGE is stored in 
> a
> cookie.  If the UGE was granted as 'bypass your Do Not Track 
> setting', I
> would expect a consumer to think that this exception has the same
> persistence as its DNT setting.

Dear Vinay,

I would concur that this would be a potentially unintended consequence 
in some cases. It still do not understand why it would be "unfair". And 
it is a situation which can be rectified easily if the server detects 
loss of a previously granted exception. Or better, by the UA through a 
model as I proposed earlier on for the cases in which the DNT is altered 
by third-party tools.

If there is consensus in this group that UGEs should have the same 
persistence as the general DNT setting, then the only logical solution 
would seem to store them together in the UA preferences. And even then 
equality of their persistence cannot be guaranteerd. Short of 
server-side mirroring of all DNT settings, inlcuding UGEs, their 
persistence cannot be governed by the DNT spec. It probably won't 
surprise you that I am not overly keen on collecting and retaining even 
more user data as a result of the DNT standard than before, to say the 


Received on Thursday, 8 November 2012 20:08:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:00 UTC