W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Issue 115, exemptions, best practices

From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 19:41:25 -0500
Cc: "'Alan Chapell'" <achapell@chapellassociates.com>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <8FE42C12-4E5D-4D9F-AE93-AA4D75847FAD@democraticmedia.org>
To: "Jules Polonetsky" <julespol@futureofprivacy.org>
It's a panel, which is distinct from user impact/expectations.  That is covered by research issue.


On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Jules Polonetsky wrote:

> Here is a current example of users being paid for tracking
>  
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/google-screenwise-project_n_1263128.html?ref=tw
>  
> From: Alan Chapell [mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:59 PM
> To: Jeffrey Chester
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: Issue 115, exemptions, best practices
>  
> Jeff -
>  
> If we're starting with the premise that any attempt to get a User to agree to an exemption is undermining User intent, we're going to have trouble finding common ground. Are there ANY mechanisms for providing a reward for the User's agreement to an exemption that are acceptable to you? What about providing additional free content in exchange for an exemption? Is that ok?
>  
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Alan Chapell
> Chapell & Associates
> 917 318 8440
>  
>  
> From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:50:09 -0500
> To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
> Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Issue 115, exemptions, best practices
>  
> Alan:  As you know, online marketing practices are designed to process users to agree to opt-in and data practices.  What I wrote below are just a few of the practices used by the leading co's and many others.  If a users decision on DNT is not to be undermined, we must ensure that practices are incorporated the permit fair user choice.  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> www.democraticmedia.org
> www.digitalads.org
> 202-986-2220
>  
> On Feb 8, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
> 
> 
> Jeff  In looking at what you've provided here, I'm a bit concerned that you are dictating the terms that a website has with its visitors. Can you share the rationale for each of these  and specifically, what you are trying to guard against?
>  
> Alternatively, I'm happy to have a one-off discussion on this topic on Friday early AM with Ninja and Jim.
>  
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Alan Chapell
> Chapell & Associates
> 917 318 8440
>  
>  
> From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:05:40 -0500
> To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Issue 115, exemptions, best practices
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:08:56 +0000
>  
>  https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/115
>  
> [I await input from Ninja, Alan and Jim]
> 
> 
> 
> Best Practices for sites to manage exemptions should include:
> 
> A site must provide accurate information to users on the actual data collection and use practices of the site.  This should include all information used for tracking, targeting, sales of profiles.  
> A site should not suggest that the ability to access information is dependent on blanket acceptance of a site's data practices.
> A site should not use "immersive" multimedia applications designed to foster opt-in as a way to encourage a user agreeing to an exemption.
> A site should not use a special landing page that has been designed principally to convert a user to agree to permit an exemption.
> A site should not use social media marketing to urge a user to ask their "friends" to approve exemptions.
> A site should not offer rewards and incentives for a user to approve of an exemption.
>  
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 00:42:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:45 UTC