- From: David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:52:10 -0500
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, public-tracking@w3.org
On 11/19/12 6:32 PM, David Singer wrote: > > I take it, following this thread, that you OK with even stronger language for sites, when they are getting consent for an exception? Sites have every incentive to get users to agree, and it's easy to call the API to log the exception with the UA. In contrast, the browsers cannot 'hide' whatever their options are, and have little direct incentive to mislead anyone. > > As I've said before, I am not necessarily opposed to guidelines for how sites/servers get consent. In fact, this could be very helpful, because companies will get some advice on how to stay within the lines and be good actors. However, you also have to recognize the imbalance between servers and UAs. Servers have incentives to do a good job of getting consent, and they face real (legal) consequences if they don't. UA's on the other hand have few incentives to fully inform their users about the effects of DNT, and have virtually no consequences for doing an inadequate job of it.
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2012 17:52:40 UTC