RE: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that sets DNT headers

Jeff,

I disagree both on your philosophical position (compliant Servers must honor non-compliant UAs) but more importantly as part of the working group process.  Hopefully we can review this (again) at the next TPE weekly meeting.

- Shane

From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: John Simpson; Tamir Israel; Dobbs, Brooks; David Singer; David Wainberg; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org); Nicholas Doty
Subject: Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that sets DNT headers

Shane:  I don't believe we have said such flags are "invalid."  I agree with John, DNT:1 must be honored. We should not penalize privacy by design, a policy most stakeholders support.
Regards,

Jeff



On Aug 21, 2012, at 7:49 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:


John,

I thought we already agreed in the working group to remain silent on this situation and allow implementers to defend their actions with respect to sending invalid flags.  Correct?  I understand your personal views here but I wanted to reconfirm the working group end-point on this issue.

Thank you,
Shane

From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:46 PM
To: Tamir Israel
Cc: Dobbs, Brooks; David Singer; David Wainberg; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>); Nicholas Doty; Shane Wiley
Subject: Re: action-231, issue-153 requirements on other software that sets DNT headers

For what it's worth I do not see how you can "blacklist" a UA that is supposedly noncompliant if it sends a valid DNT:1 You can write a letter to the vendor, you can call them out for being noncompliant, you can protest to regulatory authorities if they claim to be complaint when they are not.

However, if you get a DNT:1 signal, it needs to be honored.

On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:58 PM, Tamir Israel wrote:



OK -- I am not advocating two headers! Although one for each personality would probably lead to more accurate profiling ; P

I suppose my concern was a combination of a.) how far will a UA's obligation to check that alterations to its DNT are 'reflective of user input' be stretched and b.) whether this opens up the door to more UA blacklisting potential.

Best,
Tamir

On 8/21/2012 5:13 PM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote:


Tamir,

You are making this too complicated.  UAs shouldn't be required to audit
applications, plugins, etc - they should, per the spec, only ever send a
signal which is consistent with a user preference.  If they don't feel
confident that what they are sending meets that requirement they shouldn't
send anything.  Anything else completely undermines the spec.  If you send
two DNT headers, you are by definition, non-compliant (schizophrenic users
not withstanding).

-Brooks



----------
John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA,90405
Tel: 310-392-7041
Cell: 310-292-1902
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>


Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org<http://www.democraticmedia.org>
www.digitalads.org<http://www.digitalads.org>
202-986-2220