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

David, 

the consent stuff is a by-product for the current US-centric 
considerations of this thread.

We seem to agree that DNT is "a mechanism for communicating a user's 
preference." And the user expects an answer whether this preference 
is accepted or not. 

The user expresses "yellow" and you respond "red". Do you honor the 
user's preference? No, you just made a counter proposal. Merriam 
Webster calls that negotiation. You force DNT into negotiation with 
your suggestion. This is my analysis and that negotiation doesn't 
work. Period.

Now if you have yellow, red and blue to answer, don't you think the 
user can -in his preference- then also ask for one of the three? 
What would you do if the answer doesn't match?

Your suggestion changes the entire protocol and puts it upside down. 

DNT is not the all encompassing compliance thing. It is one 
important tool with fixed semantics. It is technically not made to 
carry a variety of semantics (or messages of compliance). If you 
need compliance statements to OBA, I can call you and tell you a 
long story about P3P and what it would mean to do similar things now 
and in the mobile web. 

Please don't try to transform a car into a helicopterjetplane

Rigo


On Thursday 06 September 2012 16:08:09 David Wainberg wrote:
> I always appreciate your thoughtful analyses. However, this
> analysis  assumes DNT is a mechanism for negotiating consent. I
> do not see it that way. It is, rather, a mechanism for
> communicating a user's preference. DNT:1 is a user's preference,
> not an offer in a contract negotiation. The communication back
> regarding how the server honors that preference (or doesn't)
> provides transparency, and, as raised in ISSUE-45, a "regulatory
> hook."

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 20:37:14 UTC