Re: Request-Off-The-Record Mode header

[Shivan Kaul Sahib <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 at 21:45, Watson Ladd <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023, 4:29 PM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I am a staunch opponent of the use of consent for this sort of thing.
> Notice, perhaps, I might be able to get behind.
> >
> > To manage risk of destroying potential audit trails, it seems like it
> would be reasonable for browsers to ignore the signal if the site took
> actions that might result in permanent effects (like downloads of malware,
> use of powerful features that do require consent, that sort of thing).  The
> browser might retain *less* information, and create warnings if it does,
> but accountability is important.
>
> We have consent with good reason for a camera usage but letting that
> make a site get recorded would mean a domestic violence hotline
> couldn't offer a video chat with a therapist with this feature.
>
> I can't claim to have the answers for that one but that's just one
> feature and example, and I don't know we can give terribly good
> guidance here. I think browser vendors will have to use their best
> judgement on the tradeoffs and UX to explain them, at the cost of the
> header meaning slightly different things across browsers.
>

 Yeah, I was imagining the UX would be up to the user agent. The header
would simply indicate that the website thinks that the user might not want
to keep traces of this interaction.

>
> Sincerely,
> Watson Ladd
>
>