- From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:32:34 +0000
- To: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
John, I believe the problem of non-intuitive parties injecting the DNT signal is going to grow unbounded - even more so than it already is today - once we announce a completed standard. In many cases it's impossible to disambiguate a "good" signal from a "bad" one - so we're likely to recognize many of them. Since there will still be situations where it's obvious and able to be detected when a "bad" signal is being sent, I believe we should still have an option of sending the "D" response (disregard) but I see the probability/percentage of that outcome being MUCH lower than the volume of DNT:1 we're likely to see as this advances. It's simply too easy to inject DNT:1 into the page response flow using our current approach... Long story short - in this proposal I could imagine most, if not all, DNT signals are recognized. Please understand this is a SIGNIFICANT compromise position so hopefully you'll honor it as such to help us find middle-ground and a consensus position. I hope we both agree this will be a huge step forward for online consumer privacy. NOTE - I speak only for myself on this situation - not Yahoo! or other industry participants - BUT I suspect you'll find my position to be shared by many others. - Shane -----Original Message----- From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:38 PM To: Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org public-tracking@w3.org Subject: De-identification and 3 data states? Hi Shane, A question prompted by your slide presentation about de-identification: Do you envision only data collected from UA's sending a DNT:1 message to be handled in the manner described, or would industry simply process all data collected in this way? Thanks, John
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 22:33:16 UTC