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

Re: Issue-5 Proposal-7

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:59:22 -0700
Cc: <rob@blaeu.com>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'Carl Cargill'" <cargill@adobe.com>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3FD5987C-526C-4194-8B21-55C663451A4E@gbiv.com>
To: "Mike O'Neill" <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
On Oct 30, 2013, at 2:22 PM, Mike O'Neill wrote:

> Roy,
> Rob's non-normative text addresses an important aspect of all this, how
> tracking is understood by many and why they donít like it. It is defined as
> a  process "intended to analyse or predict the personality or certain
> personal aspects relating to a natural person..."

No, it isn't defined like that at all.  Seriously.
That's just analysis.  If you don't differentiate between
analysis and tracking, then how do you explain the privacy difference
between contextual advertising and behavioral advertising?

> and the actual mechanism,
> tracking data or whatever, is less relevant in this context. 

No, it's the only reason we have this WG.

> I agree there does need to be a definition of the exact things a server must
> do/not do to comply, and we may decide on multiple versions of that (taking
> into account local law), but the DNT header is a mechanism for communicating
> an instantly recognisable human concern so why not describe it as such. 

We are describing it as such.  Tracking is defined by the definition
we agree to, not by supposedly non-normative text.  The definition
has to be consistent with what the user is asking the servers to
turn off.  The users are not asking to turn off all personalization.
Hence, Rob's non-normative text is incorrect.

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 21:59:50 UTC

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