Re: Sitecom adds Do Not Track to its routers

See my text on action-284
On Dec 1, 2012 6:02 PM, "Grimmelmann, James" <James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu>
wrote:

> Ian, what language in the draft would the router be noncompliant with?
>  For example, the requirement that there be a doNotTrack DOM attribute is
> expressed as a MUST only for user agents.  Am I missing something else that
> would impose a requirement on the router?
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> James Grimmelmann              Professor of Law
> New York Law School                 (212) 431-2864
> 185 West Broadway       james.grimmelmann@nyls.edu<mailto:
> james.grimmelmann@nyls.edu>
> New York, NY 10013    http://james.grimmelmann.net
>
> On 2012-12-01, at 8:43 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)
>  <ifette@google.com<mailto:ifette@google.com>>
>  wrote:
>
>
> David, when you say compliant I assume you mean with respect to the
> overall setting being representative of an explicit user choice? I'm not
> sure how something with no provisions for exceptions, or consistency
> between header and DOM values could be considered compliant...
>
> On Dec 1, 2012 3:43 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com<mailto:
> singer@apple.com>> wrote:
>
> On Nov 30, 2012, at 14:56 , Craig Spiezle <craigs@otalliance.org<mailto:
> craigs@otalliance.org>> wrote:
>
> As JC and i also confirmed this is an opt in device are you suggesting it
> would be non-compliant?
>
> My read of their product literature is that the device is intended for
> individual sale, so in that case, it's probably compliant.  It is someone
> being enabled to have single central control of DNT for all their devices
> on their own network.
>
> My read may be wrong, of course.
>
>
> As more sw and hw solutions come to market specially designed to block
> ads, enhance privacy or third party calls I believe the intent of the user
> will be met through the user's purchase. That said I would hope there is a
> user string detectable so the site can detect such usage and determine what
> content / services are made available
>
>
> Sent from my phone
>
> On Nov 30, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net
> <mailto:Brendan@iab.net>> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#dnt-header-field
>
> “An HTTP intermediary must not add, delete, or modify the DNT header field
> in requests forwarded through that intermediary unless that intermediary
> has been specifically installed or configured to do so by the user making
> the requests. For example, an Internet Service Provider must not inject
> DNT: 1 on behalf of all of their users who have not expressed a preference.”
>
> If the router has a single point to configure the DNT header field for all
> outbound traffic, and the LAN it is in front of has more than one user
> making HTTP requests, then the Sitecom functionality is not compliant with
> the requirements on intermediaries as defined in section 4.2 of the TPE
> document.
>
> /brendan.
>
> From: JC Cannon [mailto:jccannon@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 1:14 PM
> To: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List
> Subject: Sitecom adds Do Not Track to its routers
>
> “The Do Not Track functionality is disabled by default, and requires the
> user to visit the router's configuration page to enable it. Sitecom has
> confirmed that, in addition to launching the software on third-generation
> X-Series routers, it will bring the Do Not Track option to existing devices
> with Sitecom Cloud Security through a free firmware update.”
>
> http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2012/11/29/sitecom-do-not-track/1
>
> JC
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
>