- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:54:39 +0200
- To: Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "rob@blaeu.com" <rob@blaeu.com>
On Wednesday 24 October 2012 10:06:03 Vinay Goel wrote: > The language you proposed says that the W3C DNT specs trump > all other self-regulatory requirements. Vinay, in all other wording, all other self-regulation would trump W3C DNT despite the user using the W3C DNT signal. So if we have the user send a signal DNT:DAA or DNT:EU and the service responds YES, that's fine. But we do not send that signal. We send DNT:1 or DNT:0 This is not a rathole IMHO. Because I don't think businesses collect data just for the fun of it. Businesses collect data because of their business model that is in 99% of the cases enshrined in the contractual relations with other partners. If those trump DNT, sending DNT:1 does not change a thing to the behavior, as all is allowed by contractual obligations. Amy says: yeah, that's why I only included past obligations. But those my be a continuing obligation and last for the next 40 years. They will send back "3" and "3" will mean just what DNT:unset would mean. The user sends DNT:1 you can't just respond: "3" and mean a completely different regime that fills out the meaning of "3". There we will have a mismatch of codified declarations. Compare it to going into a shop ordering milk and getting a beer. And "contractual obligations" are just not the right semantics, because this is whatever you created for yourself. This is like changing contracts unilaterally and after the fact. You bought a car for 10k and 3 days later the dealer comes and says, gimme 5k more because I feel so. Finally having other regimes trump, DNT ends up as a negotiation protocol that DNT should not be (for obvious reasons of simplicity) Best, Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 22:55:06 UTC