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

RE: Questionable Research

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:38:19 -0800
To: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8027484D7DC1F@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
Jeff,

Many individuals and organizations believe that privacy regulation could inadvertently hamper the progress of innovation and consumer benefit -- and that a better course of action is self-regulation that can keep pace with the velocity of technology evolution.  Are you suggesting anyone (person or organization) that holds this view is incapable of providing unbiased reviews of research and that only those that believe legislation/regulation is the answer can provide unbiased reviews?

- Shane

From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:31 AM
To: Alan Chapell
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Questionable Research

Alan.  IITF is not a privacy group and has a consistent position against privacy regulation.



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 14, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:


My apologies, Jeff. Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough.

You attacked the credibility of Mr. Castro's findings based upon his connections and funding from industry - "Cisco, Intel, Qualcom, Oracle,  H-P, Microsoft and others."

By that logic, then it would make sense that you have similar issues with the credibility of the work conducted by the  CDT --- as the CDT also receives funding from those companies.

My point --- is that either you have issues with CDT's credibility, or you only questioned the credibility of Mr. Castro's research because you don't happen to like his conclusions.


From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>
Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:15 AM
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com<mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com>>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Questionable Research

The study is from IITF--not CDT.



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 14, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:


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-OBJECTIVITY/<http://www.innovationfiles.org/new-survey-shows-some-privacy-scholars-lack-objectivity/>

"A 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 "Americans have a low level of knowledge about [Do Not Track], but prefer that it mean that websites do not collect tracking data."

I won't 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<mailto: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<mailto: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 16:39:23 UTC

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