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

Re: claim that Internet is being "radically changed" DNT

From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:00:24 -0400
Cc: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <EF5F5F0C-9945-4BDB-8CAD-A98FB2A7FA2B@democraticmedia.org>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>

Thanks for the clarification,  Your quote is the CNET story suggested to me Adobe was involved in this decision, given your own role there:
"Roy Fielding, an author of the Do Not Track (DNT) standard and principal scientist at Adobe Systems, wrote a patch for Apache that sets the Web server to disable DNT if the browser reaching it is Internet Explorer 10. "Apache does not tolerate deliberate abuse of open standards," Fielding titled the patch.
As a result of the Apache update, Web servers using the software will ignore DNT settings for people using IE10. When a debate began yesterday in the patch comments, Fielding elaborated on his patch:

The only reason DNT exists is to express a non-default option. That's all it does. It does not protect anyone's privacy unless the recipients believe it was set by a real human being, with a real preference for privacy over personalization.

Microsoft deliberately violates the standard. They made a big deal about announcing that very fact. Microsoft are members of the Tracking Protection working group and are fully informed of these facts. They are fully capable of requesting a change to the standard, but have chosen not to do so. The decision to set DNT by default in IE10 has nothing to do with the user's privacy. Microsoft knows full well that the false signal will be ignored, and thus prevent their own users from having an effective option for DNT even if their users want one. You can figure out why they want that. If you have a problem with it, choose a better browser. "


On Sep 7, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Sep 7, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>> Hi Jeff - 
>> If you are going to attempt a rebuttal, you may want to try using facts rather than simply stating your position more vociferously using the same talking points you've been spewing since day one on this list... 
>> I understand that you find Adobe's actions unfortunate. But the question you were asked to address is  is Adobe's action not a significant (if not radical) change to the way the Internet operates? I'm sure someone will correct me, but I can't recall an instance where Adobe has taken a similar action. So perhaps the better term is "unprecedented"?
> I request that you both keep your facts straight.  Apache != Adobe,
> even though it is easy to confuse the two because the words begin
> and end the same.
> I have repeatedly informed this WG of the Apache decision.  I did not,
> in fact, discuss it within Adobe before the Apache PMC had voted on
> the patch, applied it to the 2.4.x branch, and then voted on the
> 2.4.3 release.  That decision process is publicly archived on the
> Apache mailing lists.
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-cvs/201208.mbox/%3C20120814205332.2548223889E1%40eris.apache.org%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201208.mbox/%3C88C9F94E-4B5A-4B55-855A-ED7B2FE177C7%40jaguNET.com%3E
> If you have more questions about Apache's decision, I suggest you
> ask the Apache folks who are not employed by Adobe.
> ....Roy

Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009

Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 22:01:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:00 UTC