Re: Issue-170

Jack,

>> As this proposal is written it would unfairly place a burden on the 
>> origin server to determine whether or not the DNT:0 signal was set in 
>> response to a user granted exception.

In my view, the requirements of Mike's proposal resembles a necessary 
element to restore the balance between the user and the business need. 
Could you please explain why the burden is unfair?

Rob

Jack L. Hobaugh Jr schreef op 2014-06-03 20:50:
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Thanks for your proposal.
> 
> As I understand the second part of the proposal below, it implies that
> a DNT:0 signal is set through an explicitly-granted exception.
> 
> But as I understand the TPE, a user granted exception is not required
> to set and send a DNT:0 signal.
> 
> As this proposal is written it would unfairly place a burden on the
> origin server to determine whether or not the DNT:0 signal was set in
> response to a user granted exception.
> 
> Also, there should not be a DNT:0 distinction between first and third
> parties as implied by the proposal below.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jack
> 
> Jack L. Hobaugh Jr
> Network Advertising Initiative | Counsel
> 1620 Eye St. NW, Suite 210 Washington, DC 20006
> P: 202-347-5341 | jack@networkadvertising.org
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and intended
> for the named recipient(s) only. However, it is not intended as legal
> advice nor should you consider it as such. You should contact a lawyer
> for any legal advice. If you are not an intended recipient of this
> email you must not copy, distribute or take any further action in
> reliance on it and you should delete it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> 
> On May 30, 2014, at 9:10 AM, Mike O'Neill
> <michael.oneill@baycloud.com> wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Here is my text for Issue-170.
>> 
>> I have (hopefully friendly) amended John Simpsons Proposal by
>> referencing our definition of Tracking and taking out the
>> restriction in later data use as 3rd Party, as this is covered by
>> Walter’s Proposal for Issue-219 (which I support). I have also
>> incorporated the gist of Rigo’s Proposal about the use of DNT:0 as
>> an e-privacy consent mechanism, and the bit in Vinay’s proposal
>> about service providers.
>> 
>> Proposal:
>> 
>> If a 1st Party receives a request with DNT:1 set then data regarding
>> or identifying the user initiating the request MUST NOT be shared
>> between Parties outside the context of the request, other than
>> between the 1st Party and its service providers or for permitted
>> uses as defined within this recommendation. A 1st Party MAY elect
>> further restrictions on the collection or use of such data.
>> 
>> If, as a result of an explicitly-granted exception, a 1st Party
>> receives a request with DNT:0 set then data regarding the user MAY
>> be used or shared but only for the purposes that were clearly and
>> comprehensively explained when the exception was granted.
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using gpg4o v3.3.26.5094 - http://www.gpg4o.com/ [1]
>> Charset: utf-8
>> 
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTiINJAAoJEHMxUy4uXm2Jtt0H+gIwe89nW5akvK8M/WAU0hPx
>> Mhg07ZnsPgjyaLJO/gXrjO+V42K9sv2E3cteLz8aGqCNkxT2x+XXt9oXF+zA17gl
>> WCfIfrGQ6SE1Z6TJrAItgDYPhp19cnARRn1skQqd3xaZ/GPn3W7ayaMWc8wxm805
>> tth/kRaiCf+i73zrE8LuE63Y83M1MHqgAzolsAS0eeMVHKJH3FOYYd4StHQKqJeG
>> 0k3HkagAkml9JAKDejz5opVJSbOAX07VWOWqSWSwUvHf5jGo5V9vMs6c/AgLaMru
>> AIY8Vq0oWatAzVZkGUFxAjXo4OTu0P3vxo9tIlFM1PJmOHihh1fmEeYG2hc/E+o=
>> =qa25
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> <PGPexch.htm><PGPexch.htm.sig>
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.gpg4o.com/

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2014 19:04:04 UTC