Re: Issue-151: Proposed Text (Updated)

On 23/12/2013 20:33, Shane M Wiley wrote:
> Per our last WG call, I’ve updated the proposed language for 151 based
> on the uncertainty of how Issue-153 will resolve (per Jack’s request).
> 
>  
> 
> ------
> (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 any software that
> changes user preference requests 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).
> ------

I strongly object. The goal of this protocol is to provide a
standardised means for expressing a user's preference with regard to
tracking. Matters of 'balance' do not belong in the TPE, but in the
compliance specification.

>From a compliance perspective this proposal amounts to giving the right
to a Server to nag the user for permission despite the user already
having indicated that he or she is not consenting. We're moving towards
the realm of frat boys assuming that 'no' means 'yes' here.

Regards,

 Walter

Received on Tuesday, 24 December 2013 11:40:35 UTC