- From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:57:02 -0800
- To: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
- Cc: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>, public-tracking@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 22:57:15 UTC
The place for an "educational" campaign about the impact of enabling DNT or not -- something that might well be beneficial -- is outside the specification and probably out of scope. ---------- John M. Simpson Consumer Advocate Consumer Watchdog 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112 Santa Monica, CA,90405 Tel: 310-392-7041 Cell: 310-292-1902 www.ConsumerWatchdog.org john@consumerwatchdog.org On Nov 13, 2012, at 1:46 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. > > -David
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 22:57:15 UTC