Re: >"we don't understand if DNT is on because [...]"
> anybody's *motivation* for setting DNT is a) not part of the technical spec
Actually, it is. The spec says:
> the signal sent must reflect the user's preference, not the choice of some vendor, institution, site, or network-imposed mechanism outside the user's control. The basic principle is that a tracking preference expression is only transmitted when it reflects a deliberate choice by the user. In the absence of user choice, there is no tracking preference expressed.
> A [browser] must have a default tracking preference of unset (not enabled)
Having an "Express Setup" button that enabled DNT is clearly not what the spec expects. That button would normally have been labelled "Use Default Settings", but Microsoft weasel-worded it so they can claim conformance with the letter (but not the spirit) of the spec.
There's a reason *why* that's in the spec:
If you want nobody on the Internet to be tracked, then you could try to get the politicians to pass a law saying that. But the admen aren't going to let that happen, and I think most people involved in the debate know that.
If you're happy with everybody on the Internet being tracked, then you can persuade the politicians to leave the law alone. The admen and the ad-supported industries pay lots of money to politicians to keep the law this way.
If you want people to be able to make a considered choice to opt-out of tracking, then you can invent DNT, make the DNT header off by default, then try to get the politicians to pass a law saying that following DNT is mandatory. That's a compromise, and it might have been possible to get that through the politicians.
But if you make the DNT header on by default for everyone, then try to get the politicians to pass a law saying that following DNT is mandatory, that's disingenuous. It's basically the same as outlawing tracking altogether, and I think everyone knows that. Since Microsoft have made it clear that's what they'll do, the admen will kill DNT.