Re: ACTION-258: Propose 'should' for same-party and why

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 


Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 18:05:58 UTC