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

I am also still at the position that there is no consensus on server 
side rejection of DNT signals coming from e.g. IE10. A rejection on the 
server seriously breaks the (semi-automatic) granular dialog between the 
user and a site. It also endangers interoperability. In addition to 
this, it also carves out credibility, because the server can still claim 
to be DNT compliant and shift the burden of proof to the user. If a 
server is rejecting a DNT signal, than that organization IMHO has to 
make clear and specific representations to the user. If it would be up 
to me: in real time with a clear banner or window shade.


Jeffrey Chester schreef op 2012-11-18 19:12:
> Rigo: Users require substantive information on why a server believes
> there is non-complaince--not a mere "T." The W3C process needs to
> ensure that users have robust information on the real reasons why
> their request is being rejected--such as Yahoo, major advertiser
> members of ANA, and [fill in the blank] don't believe a browser 
> should
> create a stronger default for DNT.
> We cannot leave it to the regulatory process. or blocking tools. The
> Spec should signify precisely why a UA is rejecting the user's
> request--especially when it is doing it for its own narrow economic
> purposes. This should be on our agenda when we speak next.
> Jeff
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> [1]
> [2]
> 202-986-2220
> On Nov 18, 2012, at 1:01 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote:
>> John,
>> it looks like there is a consensus between Roy, Shane, Me and some
>> others that
>> if a server believes a signal is non-compliant and does not want to
>> honor, it
>> responds with an appropriate status (I suggested "T" with a
>> definition)
>> The pressure to honor DNT:1 will not come from the Specification
>> IMHO. Users
>> are concerned and will use browsers that will react on a site not
>> accepting
>> their DNT request. From my research, I still have some sandbox where
>> I can
>> show you how far this can go. For the industry, not honoring carries
>> two
>> risks: 1/ regulator action (deliberately general wording) and 2/
>> blocking
>> tools
>> We can't anticipate and set the content of all communications, we
>> have to set
>> the conduits of those communications.
>> Rigo
>> On Tuesday 13 November 2012 14:39:42 John Simpson wrote:
>>> There was consensus around the idea that a compliant UA would
>>> represent the
>>> user's choice. There is NOT consensus around what a compliant
>>> server may
>> believes to be noncomp
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> [2]

Received on Sunday, 18 November 2012 19:12:43 UTC