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

Re: Questionable Research

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:53:53 -0500
To: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCC92852.25AD5%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Jeff ­ all of the companies you cite below also provide funding for the CDT.
Are you questioning the credibility of the CDT's work as well?

>>  
>> Shane.  Mr. Castro works for an industry funded and connected group, which
>> has worked to weaken privacy rules--including for children. It's board
>> includes Cisco, Intel, Qualcom, Oracle,  H-P, Microsoft and others.
>>  
>> It's important to discuss scholarly research that is relevant, but also
>> identify the conflicts of interest which shape their role.
>>  
>> Best,
>>  
>> Jeff
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Jeffrey Chester
>> Center for Digital Democracy
>> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
>> Washington, DC 20009
>> www.democraticmedia.org <http://www.democraticmedia.org>
>> www.digitalads.org <http://www.digitalads.org>
>> 202-986-2220
>>  
>> On Nov 9, 2012, at 3:47 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> An interesting article discussing the lack of objectivity in the research
>> paper John just circulated:
>>  
>> New Survey Shows Some Privacy Scholars Lack Objectivity
>> BY DANIEL CASTRO <http://www.innovationfiles.org/author/danielcastro/>  ·
>> OCTOBER 14, 2012
>> URL:  
>> HTTP://WWW.INNOVATIONFILES.ORG/NEW-SURVEY-SHOWS-SOME-PRIVACY-SCHOLARS-LACK-OB
>> JECTIVITY/
>>  
>> łA survey funded by Nokia
>> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2152135>  and conducted
>> at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology shows what has become
>> increasingly apparent to those who follow this line of research: some of the
>> most prominent academic researchers have ceased to retain even a veneer of
>> objectivity in their research on privacy. The authors, Chris Hoofnagle,
>> Jennifer Urban and Su Li, state that their survey shows that łAmericans have
>> a low level of knowledge about [Do Not Track], but prefer that it mean that
>> websites do not collect tracking data.˛
>> I wonąt mince words here: this is shoddy research.˛
>> 
>> NOTE:  Please follow the link above to read the rest of the article.
>>  
>> From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
>> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:13 PM
>> To: David Wainberg
>> Cc: Walter van Holst; public-tracking@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: ISSUE-187 - some thoughts on using javascript
>>  
>> I've attached as a PDF file an interesting research paper from the Berkeley
>> Center for Law and Technology about what people expect from DNT.
>>  
>>  
>> ----------
>> John M. Simpson
>> Consumer Advocate
>> Consumer Watchdog
>> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
>> Santa Monica, CA,90405
>> Tel: 310-392-7041
>> Cell: 310-292-1902
>> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org <http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
>> john@consumerwatchdog.org
>>  
>> On Nov 9, 2012, at 9:59 AM, David Wainberg wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> On 11/8/12 5:52 PM, Walter van Holst wrote:
>>> On 11/8/12 9:17 PM, Vinay Goel wrote:
>>>> Hi Walter,
>>>>  
>>>> I agree with you that the logical solution would be to store them together
>>>> in the UA preferences.  From what I understand, though, the major UAs
>>>> would likely not implement this, though.
>>> I probably should have spotted that in the list archives before, but
>>> have missed it. I cannot speek for the UAs, nonetheless all research on
>>> user opinions on tracking suggests that they are much more inclined to
>>> go for a all-out DNT:1 than for DNT:0, which makes me assume that any
>>> exception mechanism is unlikely to be used often. Sadly not all research
>>> in this field is publicly available, so we have to make do with what is.
>> What credible research can you cite that is publicly available? Unfortunately
>> we don't have much useful information on what users really want, or would
>> want if they properly understood the technology and their choices. And it's
>> certainly not very helpful to cite research that isn't available.
>> 
>> -David
>> 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
> 
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:54:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:38 UTC