Re: ISSUE-45 ACTION-246: draft proposal regarding making a public compliance commitment

On Wednesday 05 September 2012 16:10:48 Shane Wiley wrote:
> Yet it is a new issue and therefore should be considered under an
> existing issue which is highly related (such as Issue-45 where
> you initially made the suggestion for the option and then
> subsequently retreated on the suggestion – please see the full
> call minutes) or on a new issue.

Why not dump ISSUE-45 altogether because the response header is 
already that commitment. I'm very concerned that the semantics of 
the response header (that is context dependent) and the semantics of 
that public statement mismatch and create confusion and damage.

So I vote for silence. The inquiries about fooling IE's P3P 
implementation have shown that technical tokens are enough to make a 
statement. And authorities look into that statement and what they 

Concerning the choice of regimes, this is not for DNT. This is for a 
next iteration of some kind of P3P like technology that we can 
explore in the workshop. DNT can only be DNT (said to be W3C DNT in 
the thread). P3P was an engine to produce buckets. DNT is a bucket. 
You could even express it in P3P vocab.

Consequently I don't think 73 new emails on ISSUE-45 will buy us 
much. David's aim will fail because of a deep glitch produced by a 
technology choice made very long time ago: Sending a user preference 
first. DNT is the wrong technology for the choice of privacy 


Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 09:54:38 UTC