- From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
- Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 10:38:18 -0500
- To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- CC: public-tracking@w3.org
On 11/10/12 5:12 AM, Walter van Holst wrote: > Yes, and I feel that this would require an UA to check whether its > stored DNT preferences have been changed, just like UAs tend to check > whether they are the default UA. This does not require an UA to > guaranteee the DNT preferences have not been changed since one could > think of several ways of circumventing that. And to probably clarify > it further, since it is impossible to check for sure that the > preference transmitted over HTTP is the same as the one stored in the > UA, I think this should not require an UA to even try to check that. > > The reason I proposed this is that I think it is not unreasonable to > require some diligence as to to ascertain that the DNT preference > reflects the actual intents of the user. My worries are more about > DNT:0, yours happen to be about DNT:1, but we both feel that the > 'informed' bit of the expressed consent/lack of consent should be > taken seriously. > > Where we may have disagreement on is on the question at which point > due diligence becomes undue diligence. The text as proposed (and > perhaps after some refinement given the different way you may have > read it) puts in an, in my opinion, acceptable and feasible level of > that. I would welcome feedback from UA makers on this, they are likely > to have a more informed opinion on this than I have. I'm not sure we have disagreement. We're looking for the same thing: not guarantees, but a feasible level of diligence to ensure the signal reflects the actual intent of the user.
Received on Saturday, 10 November 2012 15:38:47 UTC