Re: tracking-ISSUE-269: interpretation of dnt:0/unset

This document describes a way to comply with a user's expressed DNT tracking preference and so does not include requirements around the interpretation of the lack of a signal. Legal requirements in different jurisdictions may very well apply to those cases, but they're not in the scope of this document.

Regarding DNT:0 however, we do already specfically note that consent expressed by DNT: 0 may be restricted to what the user has consented to. See Section 3.1 and Section 4.

Proposal: no change.

—npd

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 10:31 PM, Tracking Protection Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> tracking-ISSUE-269: interpretation of dnt:0/unset
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/269
> 
> Raised by: Rob van Eijk
> On product:
> 
> 
>> From Art 29:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking-comments/2015Oct/att-0003/20151001_Ares_2015_4048580_W3C_compliance.pdf
> 
> It is important that it is clear for data cont rollers to which activities the user consents. A DNT:0 signal must not be interpreted by a data controller as consent for anything other than clearly defined tracking activities. 9 Therefore, the Working Pa rty suggests including the following language: ‘In the absence of fully informed user choice, e.g., DNT is unset, 10 a data controller, or a data processor acting on behalf of the data co ntroller, SHOULD assume that a user is not aware of tracking. He MUST therefore ask for consent prior to tracking.’ Moreover, the Working Party would like to note that - in order to put the user back into control - any Do Not Track implementation for managing consent in line with Recital 66 of the ePrivacy Directive should be implemente d at the browser (configuration) level.