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


This would be forcing a de-facto opt-in standard across the Internet.  While I understand this your preference (to better align with the ePrivacy Directive), this is not a fair approach globally.  If we want the standard to be implemented by Servers across the globe we'll have to look for solutions that can naturally fit in each region's legal reality and allow that to drive compliance.  In the US, LatAm, APAC, and other regions outside of the EU (and perhaps even there - we can debate the merits), I believe it is appropriate to structure DNT to allow a fair and direct dialogue between the user and the Server - including the Server telling the user their DNT signal will not recognized (prior consent, doesn't engage in the activities covered by DNT, doesn't believe the DNT signal is valid, etc.) - with a link to learn more.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob van Eijk [] 
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:12 PM
Subject: 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 Monday, 19 November 2012 05:08:11 UTC