- From: Chris Mejia <elementslifestylegroup@hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 11:49:33 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@btinternet.com>
- CC: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>
Agree with Roy on this. Logistically/technically speaking, the proposal is not implementable at scale, in real-time. -- Chris Mejia On 6/6/14, 10:56 AM, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: >On Jun 4, 2014, at 5:38 AM, Mike O'Neill wrote: >> 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. > >There is no need for this text. If a server receives DNT:0, >it will behave according to its own set of practices for DNT:0. >It is not going to change its practices on a per-user basis. > >If those practices exceed whatever the server might have stated in some >request for a UGE, the server owner is inviting regulatory action or >lawsuits. We do not need to say anything about servers that mislead. > >If the server does not request UGEs (and thus only receives DNT:0 when >set web-wide), then it has no control over what was explained to the user >and is instead relying on the browser configuration. What the browser >configuration means is largely outside the scope of compliance, though >we all hope that they will eventually become consistent. > >....Roy
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 18:50:09 UTC