issue-170 from Mike O'Neill on 2014-06-04 (public-tracking@w3.org from June 2014)

From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 12:43:04 +0100
To: "'Jack Hobaugh'" <jack@networkadvertising.org>
Cc: <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org>, "Vinay Goel" <vigoel@adobe.com>, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, "John Simpson" <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, <rob@blaeu.com>
Message-ID: <074201cf7fea$26861530$73923f90$@btinternet.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Jack,

Your are right a DNT:0 could be set as a general preference but the proposal as it stands is silent on that. It only says a first party must not share if DNT:1 (though it may elect for further restrictions).  If a DNT:0 is received which was not a result of a UGE then the default case would be the same if DNT was unset, unless overridden by local law or voluntary further restrictions but IMO we do not need to open that can.

Mike



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
Comment: Using gpg4o v3.3.26.5094 - http://www.gpg4o.com/
Charset: utf-8

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTjwZGAAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JH/IIAMhcZ+voo2xb9YbmBSXCsK7r
2cL4iEA369nCFjbhnC4wHhIxygMBqkYQfS4PUVQFDq1GL+dn4OtvLvLUloWK705F
H9vkNGqK+WbPBNqKGPOfloFDOQ9YIpA4eRnCMWoCJhaLRJ+q0a9iJAxZRyoSRGxL
oz1CDs2xTeE5YobC2scsUSSI6o7daudtki/h3bXfHn/F29nxblAt20etp5V8HHWl
ixzq/BTU+ajCy2+p1GCf/HDjkhOTHPtI107/izlPdCioEl2mcwBqL22iSQz8pXtK
yK+gUT8/PRm5oTYITXz0MbSV/8EjAQPECkvMPibKsLTr+IrqbHkstaEHplD9evU=
=tOt2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Attachments

text/html attachment: PGPexch.htm
application/octet-stream attachment: PGPexch.htm.sig

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 12:08:57 UTC