- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:40:09 +0100
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51486AB9.5050508@schunter.org>
You are right, we only have 3 cases that seem to be acceptable. The fourth case is deemed inappropriate since it does not enable the user to find out whether his expressed desire "DNT;1" was actually followed or not. Regards, matthias On 19/03/2013 13:42, Ronan Heffernan wrote: > Matthias, > > You said that we now have 4 cases, but you seem to have only > delineated 3 cases. I think there is the fourth case: The site uses > out-of-band consent but the user cannot see or manage that consent via > a control link, and the site promises to respect it. Was that the > fourth case that you envisioned? > > --ronan > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) > <mts-std@schunter.org <mailto:mts-std@schunter.org>> wrote: > > Hi! > > > for consent, we now have 4 cases: > 1. The site has in-band consent (=DNT;0 either as a preference or > an exception) > 2. The site is reasonably certain that it has out of band consent > 3. The site uses out of band consent and a user can see (and maybe > manage) this out of band consent via "control" link > and the site promises to respect it > > I believe this translates into two qualifiers: > C = I obtained consent (either in-band or out-of-band) > c = I will handle your data according to the out of band consent > that you can retrieve via "control" > (in this case, the control link is mandatory). > > If browsers care, they can differentiate the cases (1) and (2) by > means of the fact whether they have sent a DNT;0 or not. > > > Does this sound like an appropriate resolution? > > > Regards, > matthias > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 13:40:33 UTC