W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Issue 24 - Consensus

From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:25:33 +0200
Message-ID: <5269823D.4080001@xs4all.nl>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
On 24/10/2013 22:02, Shane M Wiley wrote:
> Walter,
> 
> We're attempting to build a document that says "this is what you do
> when DNT:1" - not a document on how to manage all privacy issues
> everywhere.  That perspective continues to slow down the progress of
> the group.

Shane,

We're trying to build two documents:

- one that specifies how a UA should express a tracking preference and
how a HTTP-server may respond to it (AKA the TPE)
- one that specifies how a party that claims to be DNT compliant should
behave in order to validly do so (AKA the Compliance Specification)

Nowhere does our charter mention that group should only concern itself
with the consequences of a DNT:1 signal.

The groupd may decide that outside a DNT:1 signal there is nothing to
comply to, but I don't think we have reached consensus on that since
we're not even sure whether we will have a Compliance Spec at all.

My take would be that, if we are going to have a Compliance Spec, that
in order to be able to claim DNT-compliance one should restrict data
gathering regardless of any DNT signal received, but that those
restrictions may vary depending on the type of DNT signal received, if
any. I am willing to entertain the notion that these restrictions may
vary across a multitude of Compliance Specs as well.

Regards,

 Walter
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 20:26:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:19 UTC