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

Sounds reasonable. Does someone want to propose text?

On 11/13/12 5:02 PM, Ed Felten wrote:
> It seems odd to require that UAs inform users of potential negative 
> effects of enabling DNT, without also requiring that the user be 
> informed of potential positive effects.  If we're going to require a 
> list of specific effects be disclosed, that list should be balanced 
> and relevant to what users want to know.
>
> (I am not advocating detailed requirements on UA UI here, just 
> pointing out that if we do go down the road of mandating disclosure, 
> that disclosure should not limited to negative effects.)
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 4:46 PM, David Wainberg 
> <david@networkadvertising.org <mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>> 
> 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
>
>