- From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:40:05 +0100
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Message-ID: <510A9055.2060107@xs4all.nl>
On 1/31/13 4:30 PM, Shane Wiley wrote: > > Thank you for the thoughtful exploration of incentives for allowing > exception setting from Servers. I thought we as a working group had > originally agreed that if a Site has collected out-of-band (OOB) > consent from a user, that they could proactively store this in the UA > for appropriate relay on subsequent interactions. Weren't you > supportive of that position? If so, I'm curious how this process > changes that? > > > > There is little incentive for Sites to adopt DNT if direct consent > mechanisms are second questioned by the UA as they will not be able to > relay the context and value exchange messaging in which the consent > was originally captured (basically, a Site would be opening up its > direct consent with users to a UA confirmation). As each exception > transaction is recorded, it is readily available for advocates and > regulators to interrogate for appropriate processing and informed > consent. This continues to be an exercise in burdening the rest of > the ecosystem to attempt to weed out bad actors that will likely not > implement DNT in the first place. The edge cases you've explored are > just that -- edge cases -- and we should avoid developing remedies to > those situations at the cost of the entire standard. > > > > There is a chain of dependencies within the Site, UA, and User > ecosystem to develop trust in DNT. The first step is that each party > desire implementing the standard in the first place. If very few > Sites implement DNT in the first place, then User trust will not > develop. I believe we'll see self-regulation step up globally to wipe > out the edge-cases you've outlined. > > > > I would ask the working group to continue to avoid overburdening and > disintermediating Sites from their Users in this standard. The > current proposal for allowing Sites to register user granted > exceptions in the UA is the right course, is supported by many/most in > the working group, and will drive higher adoption of the DNT standard > -- the first step needed to drive User trust in the utility and > confidence in DNT. > > Let's agree that user trust is paramount. Users will not trust DNT if a site can claim OOB consent without the browser at least indicating such claim. I am not asking for additonal dialogs, merely that the UA indicates the level of trust granted to the various parties. And yes, I am aware that DNT is based on trust on the good faith of servers. I do not think that trust is nurtured by a standard that requires no indication to users of discrepancies between their browser settings and actual behaviour, even in good faith, of a server, where it can be reasonably detected by the UA. I concur with Nick that this would cast doubt on the meaning of the signal. Regards, Walter
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 15:40:40 UTC