Re: tracking-ISSUE-150: DNT conflicts from multiple user agents [Tracking Definitions and Compliance]

New voice here...  I might as well jump right into the controversy.

I am not sure there is full consistency here.  I read the spec as saying
³Key to that notion of expression is that it must reflect the user's
preference².  This seems pretty foundational to me.  Where there is a
significant likelihood for the origin server to believe that the expression
is not a reflection of the user¹s preference (either as a 1 or a 0),
wouldn¹t such server  be in error to process it accordingly?  Conversely to
the IE/AVG cases, if hypothetically an ISP were to inject an extension into
every DNT header which in the future allowed for an exception, wouldn¹t the
server be in error for always making room for this exception where they know
it to be coming from that ISP?

-Brooks

-- 

Brooks Dobbs, CIPP | Chief Privacy Officer | KBM Group | Part of the
Wunderman Network
(Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | kbmg.com
brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com



This email ­ including attachments ­ may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient,
 do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
immediately and delete the message.


On 6/1/12 4:36 PM, "Justin Brookman" <justin@cdt.org> wrote:

>    Agree with David --- we don't even know what MSFT's eventual implementation
> is going to be, and I can't say I know what AVG's is today.  Is there a screen
> that's pre-checked?  Is there some sort of ephemeral notice saying "by the
> way, DNT is on."  Will those UIs change over time?  Who is going to monitor
> the UIs and make the decision: "No, this isn't user choicey enough!"  How will
> you know what the UI was when the user installed the user agent?  Even if the
> default is on and there's no notice at all, how will the party know that the
> user didn't turn it off at some point, see a retargeted ad for a Vegas casino,
> and then turn in back on again?
>  
>  I can't see how a standard answers those questions.
>  
> Justin Brookman
> Director, Consumer Privacy
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 I Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> tel 202.407.8812
> fax 202.637.0969
> justin@cdt.org
> http://www.cdt.org
> @CenDemTech
> @JustinBrookman
>  
>  On 6/1/2012 5:28 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> On Jun 1, 2012, at 14:22 , Shane Wiley wrote:
>>  
>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> David,
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> I disagree.  If you know that an UA is non-compliant, it should be fair to
>>> NOT honor the DNT signal from that non-compliant UA and message this back to
>>> the user in the well-known URI or Response Header.  Further, we can provide
>>> information for the user to use a UA that is DNT compliant if they wish for
>>> their preference to be honored in that regard.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> OK, I think we will have to agree to disagree.  I can't think of any other
>> spec., off hand, that allows one end to 'misbehave' if they believe the other
>> end is misbehaving.  There *are* specs that deal with what you do if you see
>> actual invalid values, incorrect responses, etc., but none that I know of
>> that allow you to conclude 'you didn't really mean that' and do something
>> other than what was signalled.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> I still don't know how you tell the difference between a user who agree with,
>> and wanted, the choice, and a user who wasn't aware of it.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>   
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> David Singer
>>  
>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>   
>>  
>>  
>