4 ms·

Can we make a "User TOS" standard wherein a link to a user's personal Terms of Service is embedded in, say, a "User-TOS" GET header, which could include terms i

by Zikes 11y ago

Can we make a "User TOS" standard wherein a link to a user's personal Terms of Service is embedded in, say, a "User-TOS" GET header, which could include terms implying that by continuing to serve content to the user the web site accepts the user's terms? Preferably the TOS would include verbiage to continue blocking ads, to forbid the use of tracking cookies, and other such pro-consumer terms.

Zikes 11y ago
I just realized I just proposed a more complicated version of "Do Not Track", for all the good that did.
- tajen 11y ago
  Along with the X-I-DONT-WANT-YOUR-APP-THANKS header ? I'm not actually joking, our protocols could embed many more use-cases than they currently do.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    Ideally that could be included in the User TOS. Think of it like the Creative Commons model, a lot of standardized information is contained in the string "CC-BY-NC-SA", even though it's been customized for a particular person's use case. In this instance, you could have TOS-NA-NC, where NA is "No App" and NC is "No Tracking Cookie".
thwarted 11y ago
There's always Platform for Privacy Preferences[0], which is kind of what you suggest, but specifically in the context of where the TOS/site policy talks about user identity/information. It ultimately ended up being more of a thorn in the side of server operators because, IMO, of the way Microsoft implemented the UI in IE's preferences (and that few other browsers actually honored it). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P
- Zikes 11y ago
  That doesn't sound quite right to me, as it's pitched as a system for web sites to implement individually to try to standardize user privacy systems. My suggestion is more along the lines of how a web site TOS works right now: it's going to be different for everyone, but it's accessible to the target and by continuing to serve content they implicitly agree to it and therefore are legally bound by it. If we're expected to read and agree to every single web site's TOS or face the consequences, it's only fair if the reverse is also true.

by Zikes 11y ago

Zikes 11y ago

I just realized I just proposed a more complicated version of "Do Not Track", for all the good that did.

tajen 11y ago
Along with the X-I-DONT-WANT-YOUR-APP-THANKS header ? I'm not actually joking, our protocols could embed many more use-cases than they currently do.
- Zikes 11y ago
  Ideally that could be included in the User TOS. Think of it like the Creative Commons model, a lot of standardized information is contained in the string "CC-BY-NC-SA", even though it's been customized for a particular person's use case. In this instance, you could have TOS-NA-NC, where NA is "No App" and NC is "No Tracking Cookie".

thwarted 11y ago

There's always Platform for Privacy Preferences[0], which is kind of what you suggest, but specifically in the context of where the TOS/site policy talks about user identity/information. It ultimately ended up being more of a thorn in the side of server operators because, IMO, of the way Microsoft implemented the UI in IE's preferences (and that few other browsers actually honored it). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P

Zikes 11y ago
That doesn't sound quite right to me, as it's pitched as a system for web sites to implement individually to try to standardize user privacy systems. My suggestion is more along the lines of how a web site TOS works right now: it's going to be different for everyone, but it's accessible to the target and by continuing to serve content they implicitly agree to it and therefore are legally bound by it. If we're expected to read and agree to every single web site's TOS or face the consequences, it's only fair if the reverse is also true.