- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:35:40 -0700
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: "<public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
On Jun 11, 2012, at 2:19 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > On Saturday 09 June 2012 16:31:59 Roy T. Fielding wrote: >> As I mentioned to Rob, the directive requires explicit, informed, >> and specific prior consent for each purpose to which the data >> collected will be used. Since DNT does not itself communicate a >> purpose, the exception framework does not satisfy the ePrivacy >> Directive (by my reading, at least) regardless of how we tie down >> specific third parties. > > And in stead of asking what that purpose is and could be at least, > you throw the baby with the bath. Why? I have already asked about the purpose. No answer has been given. There is no point in having an exception mechanism if it doesn't solve a real problem. Since it is by far the most complicated, unimplemented, and latency-inducing part of the protocol, we should remove it from the spec and instead rely on the existing cookie-based mechanisms for opt-in-while-DNT. ....Roy
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 22:36:01 UTC