- From: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:29:20 -0400
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Message-ID: <514CB110.10900@cdt.org>
The 48 hours doesn't really matter if a consumer doesn't have visibility into the answer. And anyway, in either case, you are seeking to hold and use the data for up to 53 weeks pursuant to the proposed market research exception. I still do not understand why you cannot operate in-band or otherwise configure the user agent to send DNT:0 signals using your client-side software. I'm sure there are engineering costs and challenges to all parties represented in the working group, but I had not heard before that responding to DNT:1 and DNT:0 signals would be technologically unfeasible (which would seemingly be more so for third parties without client-side software). I also don't see how a conditional "C" signal helps. Without definitive, machine-readable signals, it's hard to see how this system is accountable. There is currently no general auditing requirement in the standard, and I would be reluctant to put one in as an unnecessary burden and expense. Justin Brookman Director, Consumer Privacy Center for Democracy & Technology tel 202.407.8812 justin@cdt.org http://www.cdt.org @JustinBrookman @CenDemTech On 3/22/2013 3:06 PM, Ronan Heffernan wrote: > I sent a correction earlier, but I think our emails crossed. In case > you did not notice, I am talking about a very short time, perhaps on > the order of 48 hours, not 53 weeks, to allow the system to determine > whether an OOBC exists. Another difference is that the OOBC-not-found > condition might trigger a normal, DNT-compatible de-identification of > the data from non-OOBC users, rather than a discard of all of that > data. That is a minor difference from a DNT perspective, but I want > to be clear. > > --ronan > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:53 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com > <mailto:singer@apple.com>> wrote: > > > On Mar 22, 2013, at 10:45 , John Simpson > <john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>> wrote: > > > If David's characterization of what Ronan is seeking is > correct, I'd suggest the practice would be incompatible with DNT:1 > > I kinda hope I am wrong… > >
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 19:29:49 UTC