Re: any additional Proposals on UA requirement to handle exceptions

I would echo this, and add (even though we are not prioritizing compliance
right now) that the compliance doc opens by saying:

Do Not Track is designed to provide users with a simple preference
expression mechanism to ALLOW {emphasis added} or limit online tracking
globally or selectively.

Unless we protect the components of DNT meant to express both alternatives
of a choice, one wonders if we aren't essentially offering a car's color
option in whatever color a consumer chooses, so long as it is black.

-Brooks



-- 

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com



This email ­ including attachments ­ may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
immediately and delete the message.



On 12/4/13 10:32 PM, "Shane M Wiley" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

>Nick,
>
>While you and I agree that the language as stated already makes it clear
>that a User Agent must support User Granted Exceptions UGEs to be
>compliant with the standard.  That said, it appears others felt the
>current structure of the document could be interpreted differently.  As
>such, I propose we add a specific statement at the beginning of section 6
>making this more clear:
>
>------
>(normative)
>
>The goal of this protocol is to provide balance in both the setting of
>the DNT signal and possible user granted exceptions to that DNT
>preference.  To be compliant with this standard a User Agent MUST provide
>the facility for a Server to record granted exceptions utilizing the
>services described in this section and alter DNT signals for those
>Servers appropriately going forward (DNT=0).
>------
>
>- Shane  
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nicholas Doty [mailto:npdoty@w3.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 1:56 PM
>To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>Subject: any additional Proposals on UA requirement to handle exceptions
>
>As discussed on today's teleconference, we'd like to finalize the list of
>proposals for issue-151, but there was a bit of confusion today about
>whether the two we had (a. no text; b. mark feature as optional) were
>sufficient. The chairs have asked for any additional proposals by
>tomorrow (December 5th), which you can email to the group (this thread is
>fine) and add to the wiki here:
>
>  
>http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Proposals_on_UA_requirement_to_handle_
>exceptions
>
>I personally had thought we were already very close to consensus on this
>issue (and only needed two proposals), so apologies if I misread us.
>
>Thanks,
>Nick
>

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 18:09:10 UTC