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

Re: ACTION-262 Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

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>
Message-ID: <1984618.rh1FmyTCjE@hegel.sophia.w3.org>
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)


Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 22:55:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:59 UTC