Hi Luis,
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:44:12PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
When we evaluated the last spec draft (Jan/Feb?) "do not track" in the specification quite clearly and explicitly meant "do not allow tracking by *third parties*". So the tracking we do internally is permissible, whether or not DNT: 1 is set.
According to the W3C draft document, I guess we should be fine.
But the W3C draft as it currently stands misses the people.
And I'd much rather see us matching people's expectations than W3C's (to which not many buy in around DNT).
I gave some citations in a parallel thread [1], but since in a privacy discussion today, there was the call for more official statements from higher body's, let me add a quote from Neelie Kroes, European Commissioner for Digital Agenda [2]:
DNT has a lot of potential because it can apply: First, to all networked devices and applications Second, to all types of tracking and Third, to all purposes of tracking.
That's a much broader DNT vision than W3C's. People more buy into this broader interpretation than W3C's.
And there are also other more technical and concrete interpretations of the DNT header. For example EFF's pretty new one used in their Privacy Badger:
https://www.eff.org/dnt-policy
As late as December the draft defined neither "track" nor "third party", which was... frustrating.
That sentiment to the W3C's DNT drafts is shared by many :-D Although meanwhile those definitions have been added, they do not help in meeting people's expectations.
Have fun, Christian
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/analytics/2014-May/002052.html [2] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11-461_en.htm