RE: link shorteners etc.

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 

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.



Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 09:56:44 UTC