- From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:08:37 +0200
- To: <public-tracking@w3.org>
On 2012-10-31 15:45, David Wainberg wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > This does not do enough to ensure that a DNT signal reflects a users > deliberate and informed choice. First, it should be a MUST. Second, > it > should apply to any software responsible for modifying or including > the DNT header. Back in August I proposed the following: > > "A UA that allows or enables other software to alter the DNT setting > MUST ensure that such alteration reflects the user's intent." > > That accomplishes what we want, doesn't it? The consequence would be that all current extension mechanisms of popular UAs such as Firefox, Chrome and IE would fail to meet this criterium. The ultimate consequence would be a DRM-like measures plus a an audit that goes further than for examle iTunes App Store does to ensure this 'MUST' and even then this cannot be guaranteed. It is a burden UA producers cannot bear. It also goes far beyond what is a normal industry practice in similar situations, such as click-through license agreements. These are often bypassed in deployment mechanisms perused in corporate environments for the simple reason that the end-users consent in that context is superfluous given corporate policy. If it is at all possible to prescribe UA behaviour this much I can imagine that Jonathan's text be altered into: A UA MUST incorporate detection mechanisms for alteration of DNT-preferences by third-party software (including third-party UA-extensions and plugins) and MUST upon detection of such changes verify with the user that they reflect the user's intentions. The UA MAY provide the user with the option to ignore future changes in the DNT-preferences or to automatically change them back to a user-set preference. This would be a bit like the common practice for browser vendors to detect whether their browser is the user's default browser and requesting user input on that subject. I think the above captures both you and Jonathan's concern. Regards, Walter
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 14:09:09 UTC