I didn’t reference the McDonald study in my reply, but I too am not particularly persuaded by the conclusions.
“Many think it means they will not be tracked at all, including collection” suggests to me a fundamental lack of literacy among the users surveyed about what data that browsers pass with HTTP requests. > On Jan 16, 2015, at 7:54 PM, Dario Taraborelli <da...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > Ori, > >> we are making use of the header that we think is consistent with the >> expectation of users > > based on what evidence? > > I’ve seen a single reference cited in this thread pointing to a study that > candidly declares in its abstract: > > “Because Do Not Track is so new, as far as we know this is the first > scholarship on this topic. This paper has been neither presented nor > published. “ [1] > > The ample and representative sample considered by the EFF is well captured at > the beginning of this statement: > > “Intuitively, users who we’ve talked to want Do Not Track to provide > meaningful limits on collection and retention of data.” > > Nobody is questioning the need to be transparent to our users about what data > we’re collecting, how long this data is retained and what it’s being used > for. But I see a thread full of handwaving statements about “what users > really want”, in contrast to a pretty straightforward truth that nobody who > participated in this thread would challenge: > >> which departs from the standard in a significant way. > > > I don’t see myself blessing a proposal that represents “a significant > departure from the standard” and I’d love to see more substantial evidence on > user expectations to justify this. > > Dario > > [1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1993133 > <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1993133>
_______________________________________________ Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics
