Fw: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent

Sorry, meant to send this to the public list.  Comments below.

-----Original message-----
From: Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 17:32:33 GMT+00:00
Subject: RE: ACTION-152 - Write up logged-in-means-out-of-band-consent

Shane, no one is trying to solve all consumer consent issues with this  
standard.  Under any legal regime, different types of processing require  
different types of consent---opt-in, opt-out, no consent at all, etc.  What   

this standard says will and should have no bearing on when Amazon can give  
my mailing address info to FedEx, or when my doctor can sell my records for   

research purposes, or when Facebook can deliver first-party ads based on my   

user profile.  All we are trying to decide is WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF A  
STATED DNT INSTRUCTION, how a consumer should signal that a party may act  
contrary to that DNT instruction.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that it would be an appropriate result   

for the New York Times to be able to say in para 178 on a EULA that the user  
 
is granting permission for all of the NYT's third-party partners to ignore  
DNT.  I fail to see how requiring a clear and prominent permission should be  
 
remotely controversial.

If I have told you quite clearly not to eat my cake, you should make clear  
that you would like to eat my cake despite my instruction.  Otherwise, users  
 
won't be able to trust that the standard works.

Sent via mobile, please excuse curtness and typos

-----Original message-----
From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org"  
<public-tracking@w3.org>
Cc: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, Jeffrey Chester  
<jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Jonathan Mayer <jmaye