Re: Discuss: Closing ISSUE-152? Feedback for out of band consent

On Apr 12, 2013, at 6:15 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:

> I have been tempted to put ISSUE-152 on my batch closing email and then realised that we may not have had this discussion.
> ISSUE-152<Mail Attachment.png>	
> User Agent Compliance: feedback for out-of-band consent
>  - We have a "C" signal that says that a site claims/uses out of band consent
>  - We have a "control" link where a user can get more information
>  - We do not require the user agent to process/display/handle this information
> - The purpose of ISSUE-152 was to discuss whether we should require user agents
>   to notify users if this "C" signal has been sent. 
> - The ideas was that the user should be educated that a site may not comply with his desire to DNT;1
> - I would leave this to the user agents whether/how to display this signal
> Opinions?

ISSUE-152 should be CLOSED.  Consent overrides DNT:1 so that the user
doesn't have to constantly turn the global setting off/on based on
which sites they choose to visit.  Signaling that the user has consented
is merely making transparent that a site believes it already has consent
from the user.  That response doesn't reduce the site's obligations
in any way: if the site doesn't actually have consent, it doesn't have
permission regardless of what is sent in the response.

When alerting is desired (e.g., inspect mode), user agents
can implement it and users can choose for themselves whether and when
to display tracking status for every element of the page.  There is
no need to obligate UAs to add verification features.


Received on Saturday, 13 April 2013 22:40:57 UTC