Re: ISSUE-184

On 225//13 8:51 PM, Chris Pedigo wrote:
> I thought Issue 184 was about whether a site can condition access to
> the site on whether the user grants consent to override DNT. Walter,
> I'm not sure how your proposed text would address that.  Are you
> solving for a different problem?

Dear Chris,

I am not sure how the text at could be
interpreted that way.

Having said that, as far as I am aware there is a rough consensus in
this group that as a rule of thumb a site (meaning a first-party in the
lingo of the spec) can require personal data in return for access to its
content. By and large (there are quite enough edge cases about which we
could argue endlessly) even a privacy advocate such as myself is not
very uncomfortable with that position.

Either way, ISSUE-184 is about a site claiming DNT-compliance while
still effectively forcing users to be tracked. So an opposite case: a
website that advertising through the DNT mechanism that it will not
track while at the same time effectively forcing users to be tracked,
but by third-parties. That reeks of false advertising to me.



Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 19:06:50 UTC