- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:05:25 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
On Tuesday 23 April 2013 16:27:55 Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > No response, no commitment, no commitment no value for the DNT > > header (other than nice decoration). > > That is entirely incoherent. A purchase involves an exchange of > value for value -- no purchase occurs if the exchange is never made. > A validly configured user preference is just information -- nothing > more or less -- and does not require any exchange of value. In fact, > the entire premise of DNT is to ask servers to voluntary discard > valuable data based on that preference. There is no exchange, > no purchase, and no agreement or contract that binds the parties. > The only legal constructs relevant to DNT are independent of DNT: > privacy regulations regarding the processing of personal data and > business regulations regarding fair and non-deceptive practices. You're arguing for DNT:1 spawning routers! They don't need to interact. And the DNT:1 header without feedback is not enforceable at all. I can always tell you: "Please wear a helmet". This doesn't force you to wear a helmet, not even to respond to my preference. This is just the initial 30 line DNT:1 implementation as it has no legal value at all. If this is true, what have we done in the past one and a half year? Why do we need a protocol at all? Instead, you write "I do DNT" on one page on your site and expose yourself to the thunderstorm of DNT:1 headers. The overhead is only justified if there is a feedback. Feedback is legally needed. If browser do not record/parse feedback, they do not implement DNT IMHO. --Rigo
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 18:05:58 UTC