- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 23:13:48 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>
Amy, the "not tracking at all" is one possible answer to the DNT:1 token sent by a user. Remember, the UA can send those DNT-tokens also to first party sites. Especially in the EU context, this also makes sense. And it provides some very easy handshake for those simple sites. (and may give them DNT:0 for EU controls and session cookies etc) So the tracking definition is one thing (minima -> US) But the DNT protocol is useful far beyond that as a communication mechanism capable of expressing privacy statements (consent -> EU) The problem is then that a kind of "super privacy state" is created (as we have seen in past discussions). We can compromise by allowing them to just send the "not tracking" status back. Because we have no other token conveying that meaning. We could send "1" for first party. But this isn't really what happens here. "N" just says, there is no collection beyond the security mechanisms (usual logging etc). I'm really missing a status token that just sends back that a site accepts and honors the DNT:1 header. For the moment, the Specification is too implicit and thus makes difficulties for logging and audit on the client side. One could imagine that sending "1" has the meaning. "first party and honoring your DNT:1" Rigo On Thursday 13 September 2012 20:08:33 Amy Colando wrote: > This is (one of) the items that continues to confuse me about the > "no tracking" claim -- aren't all of these examples that David > Singer cites below (including the original example of > http://duckduckgo.com/) first parties? In which case, having a > first party say that they don't make use of the permitted uses > that apply only to third parties makes little sense. And I > cannot imagine a scenario in which a third party would respond > that they weren't making use of permitted use exceptions -- they > simply wouldn't be present on the site at all. > > Also agree with David Wainberg on tracking definition.
Received on Sunday, 16 September 2012 21:14:16 UTC