Re: Action-157: Update logged-in consent proposal

* Shane Wiley wrote:
>We've been through this already.  If you send a 0 then a company knows
>not to request an exception.  If you receive nothing but see this a DNT
>supported browser then you wouldn't know whether to request a pro-active
>exception or ignore the situation.  Sending 0/2 provides more clarity of
>state.

I don't see what that has to do with the proposal "Sites MAY override a
user's DNT preference if they have received explicit, informed consent
to do so." Let me put it this way: I run "Track me, please!" and users
of my service have given me their explicit, informed consent to track
them regardless of their DNT preference settings when signing up for the
service.

Would it be okay for me to say that I run my service in full compliance
with all the DNT specifications? No, that would be deceptive. There is
no difference between fully complying with the DNT specifications and
the DNT specifications not existing, other than that I could formally,
and misleadingly, claim compliance if there is a "requirement" as pro-
posed (unless there are extensive requirements for sites overriding the
DNT preference that I am unaware of and that the proposal does not men-
tion.)

It's akin to saying that submarines comply with space travel regulations
if they cannot travel in outer space.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 03:14:50 UTC