- From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) <mts-std@schunter.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:47:45 +0100
- To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Team, I discussed our approach to consent (in-band and out of band) with Rigo. We observed that the fact that you have consent is orthogonal to the overall tracking status. As a consequence, we believe that "C"onsent should be signaled as a qualifier (similar to a permitted use). If we introduce this change, the scenario/flow for in-band exceptions would not change: 1. - The site has an exception and has therefore received DNT;0 from the browser 2. - The site responds with "1" or "3" to indicate that they comply with DNT However, the flow for out-of-band exception would get clearer: OLD: 1. - The site receives DNT;1 2. - The site (somehow) reliably determines _in real time_ that it has out of band consent 3. - The site responds with "C" thus indicating that it has out of band consent and provides a control link. NEW: 1. - The site receives DNT;1 2. - The site (somehow) reliably determines _in real time_ that it has out of band consent 3. - The site responds with "3C" thus indicating that - It acts as a 3rd party - It will use the data in ways that are beyond the usages permitted by DNT;1 since it has obtained out of band consent. A control link is still required. I think that modeling out of band consent as a permitted us is cleaner than the current approach that models it as a special tracking status. Note: This discussion is orthogonal to the discussion what to do if the site cannot determine the consent in real time. Opinions/Feedback? Regards, matthias
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 11:48:09 UTC