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

On Nov 18, 2012, at 20:57 , Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Jeff,
>  
> We had proposed a resource link to accompany the returned value so users can learn more as to why their particular DNT signal was not accepted (this could include not only the explanation but also instructions for the user to register a valid preference setting).
>  
> I do not agree with the value being “T” as this is short for Tracking which is not yet been defined so I would recommend we use “I” for Invalid instead.
>  
> - Shane

I would suggest "N", following Roy's suggestion that what is happening is that the site is "not listening to you".  It might be tracking, it might not (depending on local laws, practice, and so on).

And it has to be accompanied by a URL that explains what's going on.

>  
> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:12 AM
> To: Rigo Wenning
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org; John Simpson; Mike Zaneis; Alan Chapell; Shane Wiley
> Subject: Re: ACTION-212: Draft text on how user agents must obtain consent to turn on a DNT signal
>  
> 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
> www.democraticmedia.org
> www.digitalads.org
> 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
> do if it receives a facially valid DNT:1 from a browser that the server
> believes to be noncompliant...
>  

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.