Re: Claims of DNT proliferation - Evidence?

Hi Alex -

Getting this type of information would certainly be helpful.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to ascertain how many of AVG's 150 million
Users have their Do Not Track feature (enabled by default) or how many of
SiteCom's users have DNT enabled by default. The myriad plug-ins and other
offerings that enact DNT are also difficult to determine. And then there's
MSFT's IEŠ.

Moreover, It seems unlikely that the initial browser enactments of DNT
would meet the requirements of either of the two proposals under
consideration.

I think the point that many of us are making is this: given how easy (8
lines of code?) it is to send a DNT header, and given the number of
entities that are already sending DNT signals that would not meet either
of the current specification documents, it seems reasonable to envision
others sending invalid (pursuant to the spec) signals once the last call
document is published.

Thanks.

Alan




On 7/12/13 3:01 PM, "Alex Fowler" <afowler@mozilla.com> wrote:

>Apologies if this has been documented somewhere in our discussions and I
>missed it, but I'm seeing more and more claims of the proliferation of
>DNT:1 online, especially outside the browser context. Can someone point
>me to a published study or paper that makes this clear and the sources
>for these signals? For my part, I'm looking into the extent to which DNT
>may or may not be sent today by specific Firefox add-ons. If we're going
>to consider this as a factor for which signals are OK and also as a
>justification for which path we follow, it would be helpful for the
>basis for this claim to be incontrovertible.
>
>

Received on Monday, 15 July 2013 15:13:35 UTC