Re: Your concerns with ISSUE_197?

Hi David,


thanks for the feedback.

The idea of the disregard signal was that organisation can choose to 
disregard a DNT;1 signal under certain well-defined and non-common 
circumstances. Examples mentioned were that an organisation may 
disregard DNT;1 if they are certain that it does not reflect user 
preference. To satisfy the privacy goal of "transparency" it is 
important that they tell the users that their signal has been disregarded.

To avoid mis-use (e.g., a site claiming compliance while always sending 
"D"), the mentioned paragraph clarifies that the "D" signal should be 
used only under constrained circumstances.

If it is OK with you, I will close ISSUE-197. The only alternative is to 
call for alternative proposals to see whether there are other text 
proposals (that may or may not lead to a call for objections). Leaving 
the issue open to see how other things evolve is not an option. However, 
note that substantially new information can later be used to re-open 
ISSUE-197 if needed.


Regards,
matthias




Am 09.12.2013 16:02, schrieb David Wainberg:
> For the "!" I am ok with it after recent changes.
>
> For "Disregard", first I'm not sure of the meaning or intent of the 
> last para. Can someone clarify?
>
> "/Note that the D tracking status value is meant to be used only in 
> situations that can be adequately described to users as an exception 
> to normal behavior. An origin server that responds with D in ways that 
> are inconsistent with their other published and unexpired claims 
> regarding tracking is likely to be considered misleading./"
>
> Second, I'd request we leave the issue open pending finalization of 
> other aspects of the spec.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> On 2013-12-04 1:53 PM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>>
>> on our call today, we did not have strong supporters for keeping 
>> ISSUE-197 and ISSUE-161 open.
>> Since you were not present, I would like to ask you to elaborate on 
>> your concerns by email to understand them better.
>>
>> ISSUE-197 How do we notify the user why a Disregard signal is 
>> received? (Matthias, Jack Hobaugh, David Wainberg)
>>
>> We currently require that the potential reasons for sending disregard 
>> signals must be documented in the privacy policy.
>>
>>
>> What are your concerns with this resolution?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> matthias
>