Re: Issue-207

On Apr 21, 2014, at 7:12 AM, Rob van Eijk wrote:

> Burying the explenation in a large text would not suffice in my view.

Then don't bury it.

> You can not expect the user to keep track of which company accepts his user agent of choice, and which companies do not. Especially since there can be more than just one reason why a syntactically valid user expression of choice was disregarded.

I don't expect them to.  I don't expect a user to ever look at this
field, or anything else in the protocol for that matter.  I expect
regulators to look at them, and the occasional automated spider or
extension driven by someone with advocacy in mind.

Remember that the user expression part is already accomplished with
the request header field.  If a recipient doesn't want to adhere to
that expression, they would be foolish to respond at all to the DNT
signal.  "D" is only useful for servers that want to adhere to a
user's preference but are disregarding the DNT signal.  "T" is for
servers that track in spite of the preference (e.g., permitted uses).

> Roy, you take away the ability of a user to excercise choice with his user agent of choice.

No, the user agent takes away choice when it fails to implement the
protocol correctly.  That is easily correctable by the user agent.
There is nothing the server can do about it other than disregard.

> Although AB370 does not require companies to honor DNT, I am curious to hear what alternative(s) you give the user.

The same alternatives we already give, I presume, though I have not
been referring to any specific service.

> The output I think is acceptable, is adding granularity to the D-signal in the TPE in combination with new normative text to the TCS prohibiting technological discrimination.

I will not implement such a compliance document, nor will anyone
else in industry.  Creating compliance documents that none of the
servers implement is not a good use of our time.


Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 18:11:45 UTC