- From: David (Standards) Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:30:12 -0700
- To: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
- Cc: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, Tracking Protection Working Group <public-tracking@w3.org>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
On Oct 8, 2014, at 6:46 , Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > The current text talks about a personalised experience but consent may have been given for data collection, e.g. by an analytics provider or for a survey panel, that does not affect content or change the web experience. > I agree with Jonathon’s proposal that it should simply indicate consent to the processing explained when a UGE was granted, but this does not cover the general preference case. > I would like to propose this as a friendly amendment to his proposal: > A DNT: 0 signal in a request indicates a user’s explicit agreement to their personal data being collected and processed as explained at the time consent was given. If the DNT: 0 signal can only indicate a user’s general preference this recommendation places no restriction on the data collected. agreed, there was consent only in the UGE case. In the other case, the user is explicitly signalling that they don’t want restrictions. > Mike >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nicholas Doty [mailto:npdoty@w3.org] >> Sent: 07 October 2014 19:19 >> To: Tracking Protection Working Group >> Subject: Agenda for October 8 TPWG call >> >> *** gpg4o | Unknown Signature from 40203EE90BBAB306 1 2 01 1412705969 9 >> *** >> >> Reminder, call for objections on audience measurement closes on Thursday, >> October 9. >> >> Thanks, >> Nick (for the chairs) >> >> AGENDA: >> ---------------------------------- >> Confirmation of scribe. Volunteers welcome! >> Offline-caller-identification. >> ---------------------------------- >> --- Issues for this Call --- >> >> 1. TPE Last Call Comments >> >> We'll look through additional issues and some proposed responses. >> >> On a previous call, it was mentioned that we might want further comments on >> https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/262 - guidance >> regarding server responses and timing >> >> 2. Compliance issues (if we have time) >> >> ISSUE-203: >> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Third_Part >> y_Compliance >> >> Security and auditing >> ISSUE-24: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Security >> ISSUE-235: >> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Remove_auditable_ >> security_requirement >> >> ISSUE-148: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_DNT_0 >> >> 3. AOB > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32) > Comment: Using gpg4o v3.3.26.5094 - http://www.gpg4o.com/ > Charset: utf-8 > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUNUAlAAoJEHMxUy4uXm2J0ScH/0DcV6UcNzEFve2rb/AsUvO2 > 8HFLcK4/LXq97R0fESy6XuOOLWfJ9rXxJwAO8bXeYH3a75mLI093jY70rTT/p73f > nyO1G7g1l69Is/Y1ZtZzzg2jdnxMtGoOP51rR7re3Hvn3HqRGQfiRKppfr+1c/Hd > Rcr4Sxp3Mz4LzRnoUUu7hlbyWjV+BXaKQsxc5Ef7qv9hKHGrvHvlvr4oqkgYaV2h > PhDlynzbIaeikghlPySDxpllulFiefKO2yMHOvkHMVlCOT07JWQPgZhIMjaBmtBa > cHPhKEhz2llZgRAd6A05M3b/ROcDJuqVO9ws6yGUu8gi9/ID2C5+NGDUf4YnzKk= > =GtAf > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > <PGPexch.htm><PGPexch.htm.sig> David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 23:30:51 UTC