W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Third-Party Web Tracking: Policy and Technology Paper outlining harms of tracking

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>
Message-ID: <80C36716-78AF-428F-92FA-D59C8081CE48@yahoo-inc.com>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:58 UTC