RE: ACTION-212: Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal

To inject a bit of humor... (deep breathes everyone)

That same Thundercats t-shirt may actually increase your odds of attracting a truly awesome and suitable mate.  Who doesn't love Wiley Kit and Wiley Kat?  Have you seen the reboot?  :)

<Note - due to my last name, I received countless references to these two Thundercats characters during high-school.  It was a nice break from the other famous cartoon "Wile E.">

- Shane (Wiley)

From: Justin Brookman []
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: ACTION-212: Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal

The working group has been using the term explicit and informed consent<> to ensure that a user understands that they are performing a certain action (e.g., turning on DNT, or granting an exception to DNT), not to mandate a description of all the potential consequences of this action.  If I give my explicit and informed consent to Etsy to spend $500 on a one-of-a-kind Thundercats t-shirt, that should not require that Etsy provide me with information about the need to save for retirement or the fact that a Thundercats t-shirt may decrease my odds of attracting a suitable mate.

Would you support a parallel requirement that any request for a user-granted exception be accompanied by a link to a list of the parade of horribles that privacy advocates could generate about why they are concerned about third-party data collection?  Remember, the group previously agreed that we are going to be equally prescriptive when it comes to specifying how "explicit and informed" consent must be for both turning on DNT and granting exceptions to the signal.  That agreement was designed in part as a buffering mechanism against these sorts of impractical and heavy handed requirements.

Justin Brookman

Director, Consumer Privacy

Center for Democracy & Technology

1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20006

tel 202.407.8812

fax 202.637.0969<>


On 11/13/2012 4:46 PM, David Wainberg wrote:
Hi Justin,

On 11/13/12 2:06 PM, Justin Brookman wrote:

but requiring disclosure about an unproven parade of horribles in advance is not something that a technical standards setting body should be contemplating.
I believe we've already agreed that the DNT signal should reflect the user's explicit and informed consent. Doesn't the informed piece of that equation require explanation of the effects of DNT? But I can see that if you do not believe that provisions in this spec will have negative effects for the internet and internet users, then you wouldn't see the need for informing users of such negative effects. So, what do we need to do to convince you? Once we're on common ground about that, then maybe we can have a more productive conversation about how best to inform users.


Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 22:46:49 UTC