- From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:56:15 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
On 2014-06-27 03:57, Shane M Wiley wrote: > "I bet", "Nobody", "most are not even aware" are subjective personal > opinions that should not enter the debate. Please return to the > original principles of transparency and choice. A compliance spec inevitably has subjective, or rather inter-subjective, elements. We're drafting law in the form of a contract here, not drafting a technical specification. So yes, subjective qualifiers must inevitably enter the debate, the debate would even be incomplete without them. That said, I applaud your reference to the principle of choice and would add that it should include the informed aspect of that choice. The overarching goal is to provide users transparency and informed choice about the extent to which their browsing behaviour can be under surveillance by different actors in the ecosystem. Simply put: a link shortener has no business correlating the visits of different shortened URLs by the same user if the user has DNT:1 set. If that means a slightly broader definition of 3rd party which includes transient visits to an URL shortening server, so be it. If you feel that is an unacceptable broadening of the 3rd party definition, then we must talk about which 1st parties must honour DNT:1 while being a 1st party. Regards, Walter
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 09:56:44 UTC