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

Re: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:02:29 -0700
Message-ID: <4FE20225.8050409@blaeu.com>
To: Jason Bier <jbier@dotomi.com>
CC: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Edward W. Felten" <felten@CS.Princeton.EDU>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>

One major goal of your contribution was to explain [non-normative] why 
the processing with unique identifiers is proportionate.
In Washington we talked about a template. This contribution is however 
lacking any subsidiary arguments and there is no balance against the 
interests of a user.
Instead, the contribution is a firmer confirmation of the DAA multi-site 
Hope to learn more later on today, when your proposal is on the agenda.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:27 PM
To: Shane Wiley
Subject: Template non-normative text


In this spirit, the template I propose for the non-normative section
without making it a legal analysis, is:

- Start with a detailed business purpose (note: singular) description
(ie what is it that is permitted)
- Describe which categories of data will be tied to a identifier
- Explain why the processing with identifiers is proportionate
(proportianality test) and explain the alternatives (subsidiarity test)
for processing (ie why do you need a car if you can use a bycivle)
- Describe reasonable technical and organizational safeguards to prevent
further processing (e.g. by collection limitations, data silo,
authorization restrictions, k-anonimity, unlinkability, retention time,
anonimization, pseudonimization, data encryption etc.). I think our
report on TomTom [2],[3 page 13-14] is an interesting example to
correctly anonimize and aggregate a dataflow.

- Take*all*  the above into account and describe the impact on the
privacy of the user (eg what is the harm). This is a key balancing


On 20-6-2012 9:42, Jason Bier wrote:
> I would like to thank Shane for sending this as well and for Mike's 
> statement.  ValueClick also supports the industry proposal.  In the 
> spirit of cooperation and advancing interests on this matter, I hope 
> all of us can advance the process and find a solution that results in 
> meaningful adoption by a significant portion of the online advertising 
> industry.
> Jason
> **
> *Jason J. Bier, Esq., CIPP*
> *Chief Privacy Officer*
> *ValueClick, Inc.*
> *o: 312-588-3619*
> *f: 312-896-7422*
> cid:image001.png@01CCE0B7.B73DCF20
> *From:*Mike Zaneis [mailto:mike@iab.net]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:55 AM
> *To:* Shane Wiley
> *Cc:* public-tracking@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice
> Thank you for sending this Shane. While there are still some items we 
> would like to see in the two documents that might not be reflected in 
> the current industry proposal, in the spirit of cooperation and 
> advancing the process IAB supports this approach. I look forward to 
> discussing it this week.
> Mike Zaneis
> SVP & General Counsel, IAB
> (202) 253-1466
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:05 AM, "Shane Wiley" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com 
> <mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:
>     TPWG,
>     Please find attached the detailed proposal text we'll be reviewing
>     tomorrow afternoon (built upon the proposal outline I provided
>     last week).
>     The following individuals, companies, and trade associations
>     contributed to this proposal:
>     Marc Groman & David Wainberg -- NAI
>     Alan Chapell -- Chapell & Associates
>     Heather West, Sean Harvey, & Ian Fette -- Google
>     Shane Wiley -- Yahoo!
>     There is considerable detail covering numerous topics in this
>     proposal and therefore it should not be consider an endorsement by
>     all contributors to all parts of this proposal.  That said, all
>     contributors generally agree with the direction and approach of
>     this document.
>     We look forward to further discussion and fielding questions
>     tomorrow afternoon.
>     Thank you,
>     Shane
>     <Evolving Online Privacy - Advancing User Choice - W3C Seattle.docx>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2433/5080 - Release Date: 06/19/12
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 17:04:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:51 UTC