W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2014

issue-170

From: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 13:38:25 +0100
To: "'Matthias Schunter \(Intel Corporation\)'" <mts-std@schunter.org>, <public-tracking@w3.org>, "'Jack Hobaugh'" <jack@networkadvertising.org>
Message-ID: <077701cf7ff1$e1a9ef10$a4fdcd30$@btinternet.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Matthias, 

My emails are a bit late as I am having problems sending emails from my usual account.

How about the following, allowing for a general preference to be covered by the MAY, but still contingent on a clear explanation if resulting from a UGE.

If a 1st Party receives a request with DNT:0 set then data regarding the user MAY be used or shared but, if the header signal resulted from an explicitly-granted exception, only for the purposes that were clearly and comprehensively explained when the exception was granted.

Mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org]
> Sent: 04 June 2014 13:20
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: issue-170
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> 
> I believe Jack has a valid point:
> - If a site receives "DNT;0", then determining whether this was
> triggered by a UGE or set as a general preference is difficult (or even
> impossible in general).
> 
> To mitigate this concern, one option would be to outline an _efficient_
> way how a site can decide whether DNT;0 was UGE or general preference.
> An alternative would be to relax your requirement and say
> > 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 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.
> (The only change I made is the removal of the constraint "If, as a
> result of an explicitly-granted exception, ".)
> 
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> 
> matthias
> 
> Am 04.06.2014 13:43, schrieb Mike O'Neill:
> > 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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTjxNAAAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JU7cIAOZ+pl1ue+4dU/u0iBUwV2xN
LCaGqPm3rwfIJJE2WBitKocePyv+ss6dwxoblQFx2PXHamDkYeq+55YhkxflrGx4
6t+Q8+d+HEpQUpw7QNFrxCdPenzaKMUuLvSJwE7LhD4ZcqdIpqY+wJ8//NqmHy10
4k0zP7UYUOGtedDbanIFI2RoGd2WHx+3mc5EXSk/n2N+t4g69b96o/Z1sZewZtNS
C0fj5no90TAgjf/TsFraPUvW/woxDJJWAFXSqQFIniKjhZo8tKRPW5Ii1Xd+90FI
VjNyM8NpQG8EPe0JSNxXKrv2lp5dVpt9+Grbv1CNh6VhNgCoiiJsiczKN9rJMug=
=mD1Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 12:39:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:40:11 UTC