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

Re: ACTION-255: Work on financial reporting text as alternative to legal requirements

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:49:37 -0400
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
CC: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Message-ID: <CC8F99C6.2272C%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
The only thing you and I agree upon here is that you can't provide the
smoking gun. (:


More belowŠ


On 10/1/12 7:01 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

>Alan, 
>
>On Monday 01 October 2012 16:51:45 Alan Chapell wrote:
>> I appreciate your taking the time - and the willingness to engage
>> in dialog. However, you really did not directly answer my
>> questions. You are providing high level examples of privacy
>> issues - most of which will not be addressed by DNT unless we
>> radically change our approach.
>
>If DNT would not address some of those issues, you wouldn't see me
>engaged. :)

>But this IMHO. I also know that I can't provide the
>smoking gun. I guess, Ninja and Rob could. W3C as a community is a
>pretty good indication whether something is going on. People are
>afraid. This can kill the entire market. That's why we are
>discussing here.
>
>more inline
>
>> On 10/1/12 4:27 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:
>> >blocking tools. I can show you how easy it is. If this is still
>> >an issue in 5 years, this may even be more damaging to the
>> >industry than DNT ever could be.
>> 
>> How is DNT going to stop this practice? If I'm buying my tickets
>> via Delta.com, Delta is a 1st party and would not be subject to a
>> DNT signal for these purposes.
>
>Oh, Airline XYZ can only do so because they have bought the profile
>that tells them I can afford the higher price... - just as an
>example - That we do not address first parties is irrelevant for the
>EU and a sign of careful nudging of the US community.

In my experience, it would be unlikely (at best) that airline XYZ.com
would operate in the way that you're suggesting. We need to distinguish
what is POSSIBLE in theory from what is PRACTICAL. Going back to your
initial hypo:  you explained that a) you went to XYZ.com in the afternoon
and got one price and b) you re-visited that site later in the evening and
got a different price. And you believe that XYZ.com had purchased a
profile between your afternoon and evening visits to XYZ.com resulted in
your seat price increasing???? A MUCH more likely scenario is that the
airline has booked some additional seats on that flight and is now
charging more for each incremental seat. Or perhaps the airline just
charges more for flights at night than during the day.

So if this is your example of harm, you may want to keep looking (:



>> 
>> >2/ Democratic values
>> >In confirmation of Godwin's law let me tell you that I think that
>> >totalitarianism doesn't need computers. But it makes life easier
>> >for them. The concentration of high amounts of personal data in
>> >few hands is a risk in the power balance.
>> 
>> I agree - concentration of data in a small number of players is
>> problematic. How do you see DNT addressing this issue? In fact, I
>> think one can make a plausible argument that DNT will concentrate
>> data in a smaller number of entities. I believe that's a horrible
>> outcome that many in this group may be missing and/or choosing to
>> ignore.
>
>You fail to give an argument for your assertion. While one can make
>a plausible argument, you'll have to make that argument to
>contradict me. Why should the number of players be smaller if I can
>refuse collection? Note: a first party -by definition- can't collect
>cross site. Leaves you the 2-3 big fish. Those have a different
>incentive: They are targets.
>> 
>[...]

If you put the third party intermediaries out of business - by definition
the marketplace will be smaller.


>> My point - There are going to be legitimate exceptions for the use
>> of data. And each exception should be weighed on the merits -
>> benefit to creating the exception vs risks of keeping the
>> exception. My issue with your approach is that you aren't really
>> explaining what you think the harm is to allowing my specific
>> exception.
>
>Because there is a fundamental transatlantic divide. We have that
>even internally. While the eastern part believes that the
>availability of organized personal data is very prone to abuse, the
>western part believes that it is all about use limitations. Give the
>data to the junkie but say: "do not use!". Some believe, some don't.
>Note that those legitimate exceptions are law in EU. Self regulation
>has to re-invent those. For the unregulated, this is a test whether
>we can find a reasonable compromise without the formal democratic
>process.

I have no idea what you mean hereŠ But while we're on the subject of
providing arguments for your assertions, I'd invite you to provide a
specific argument of harm that addresses the request for exemptions. If
the XYZ.com is the best you can do, well...

> 
>> 
>> >It is therefore essential that somebody can just indicate to the
>> >system not to be recorded. And that the system just does not
>> >record, or at least throws away after a very short time. So DNT
>> >is just a tiny tool, a little aspect in this overall picture.
>> >But it could be a useful tool. Now you may understand that
>> >recording the same information for accounting or PCMCP (a pure
>> >use limitation that is) is not sufficient for most people.
>> 
>> What are these people you cite? Are you representing the interests
>> of consumers in the same way that Jeff and John are?
>
>People just meant my grandma. I neither represent consumers nor
>industry nor W3C Team. Because the answer given here are not
>coordinated with the W3C Team. I'm just talking to you from my ivory
>tower of 15 years of privacy research. This is my second exercise
>after P3P, XACML privacy extensions and the like... But I see the
>polls that indicate that over 56% of Europeans erase _all_ their
>cookies at least once a month. 25% weekly (from the top of my head,
>search for eurobarometer).
>
>2002, the industry thought: "danger banned, no privacy provisions in
>the US, move on". And the browsers thought: "we manage cookies by
>blocking tools". Ten years after, we are back to the core semantic
>problem: "Can I trust your assertions?". What does that tell me?
>Everybody has to optimize in some direction. That's what this effort
>is all about. I have to optimize in the direction of excellence...
>And putting in question the bases of the effort for financial
>reporting is against my optimization target. And there, your wording
>was much better (and stronger) than mine.

Thank you. Its interesting that you reference P3P. Do you believe that P3P
was a success? 

>
>Rigo
>
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 23:50:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:35 UTC