- From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:38:56 -0700
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>
Rigo, If only... We've been unable to develop a mechanism that works at scale and still allows Permitted Uses to operate as intended (aka - doesn't create significant business harm). I love this as an aspirational goal going forward but for DNT to be implemented in the near-term, unique identifiers will need to continue to exist and instead we should keep our initial focus on use-based restrictions. Avoiding valid legal requests (what you call 'Spooks') should NOT be a goal of DNT in my opinion. If you don't like the law, then work to change the law - not develop technical standards to circumvent it. Sent from Shane's mobile On Oct 12, 2012, at 2:22 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote: > On Thursday 11 October 2012 16:35:20 Shane Wiley wrote: >> So far I believe we're on track to meet your tests with the most >> recent draft. > > I like that conclusion. Lets get back to the concrete questions. Do > we really need the unique identifiers in a DNT;1 context? Shane, > could you imagine an easy hack to mitigate Rob's fears about those > unique identifiers? Can we manage those on the user side to avoid > giving a vector for profiling? > > Rigo
Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 21:39:37 UTC