- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:05:02 +0200
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- CC: public-tracking@w3.org, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Hi Rigo, I fully agree. However, I do not see a way to prevent that a company removes a UGE and pushes an OOBC (after an appropriate notice page). The important things are: - UGEs should be the preferred type of exception - UGE should be user-controlled (visible and deletable) - If you remove a UGE, tracking should stop Regards, matthias On 18/06/2013 10:18, Rigo Wenning wrote: > On Monday 10 June 2013 14:39:48 Matthias Schunter wrote: >> Do I understand you correctly that >> - you are concerned if UGEs are translated into out of band >> exceptions? > Matthias, have you ever tried to revoke your consent or to opt out of > one of those ridiculous UK ICO cookie banners? > > I think that a UGE MUST NOT be translated into OOBC, a user MUST be able > to revoke UGE by deleting the exception in the store. > > The whole point of DNT is a centralized opt-out in the browser. This > means Shane's local duplication is meaningless. It may only serve as a > memory for some historical state, but MUST NOT overwrite the status of > the UGE store in the browser. Otherwise the exercise is futile because > Johnny can't opt out anymore. > > --Rigo
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 12:05:34 UTC