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: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:18:35 +0000
Message-ID: <BLU002-W13783EC72ADB308823DAECBAA860@phx.gbl>
To: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Chris,

This forum is not here to debate the merits of DNT.  Please read the charter http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/charter

I have suggested that an explicit opt-out be added to handle needs such as your contractual needs and also suggested adding a user ID with a declared country that you could use for contractual reporting.  This may still meet the charter of the group as users still have control and are allowed to express their preference.  I challenge you to support such an initiative.

The exemptions have corrupted DNT and made it almost meaningless.  If you really believe that most users are not afraid of being profiled and tracked then you should have nothing to fear from DNT which is just a mechanism to allow users to express their privacy preferences.  Requesting more exemptions further diminishes the meaning of DNT - the only problem you are solving is to make DNT meaningless.

I support Rigo in his attempts to block your exemption and there would seem to be a duty to keep the group on charter.  But I don't think the approach taken towards the exemptions has worked - finally it gets to your requested exemption and people realize there is nothing left of DNT and that users can not express anything meaningful.

cheers
Fred

> From: chris.mejia@iab.net
> To: rigo@w3.org
> CC: achapell@chapellassociates.com; mike@iab.net; david@networkadvertising.org; npdoty@w3.org; public-tracking@w3.org; Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com
> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:55:33 +0000
> Subject: Re: ACTION-255: Work on financial reporting text as alternative to  legal   requirements
> 
> Rigo, 
> 
> Since you brought up paranoia earlier in the thread, I'd like to point out respectfully, that a few people who are "afraid" and yet can't point to the exact cause of their fears in this debate, nor real-world examples of harm done or intended, wreaks more of paranoia than substance.  Is this a forum for conspiracy theorists?  You insinuate that there is a fear amongst Internet users that will "kill the entire market", yet there is no evidence of widespread fear, nor of the market dying.  On the contrary, the market is enjoying tremendous life and success at the direct result of the vast majority of people not being afraid at all, and partaking joyfully in the riches of this market driven economy.
> 
> In making your case "that something is wrong and it must be fixed," industry representatives have time and again requested and have been patiently waiting for the privacy activists to deliver real evidence of harm or even the intent to do harm, and yet very little to nothing has been delivered that's more pointed than "well, it could happen."  In creating this forum, you asked industry to listen to your concerns, and we are here now listening, so please, if you have some smoking gun that points to industry's actual abuse of privacy, let's concentrate on that.  Let's not lose time debating theory of what "could happen" and "if" scenarios-- such debates are better left for academic institutions. Let's please try to solve REAL problems: deliver them to us in a tangible manner, with evidence of the real harm and scale of harm done, and you have a willing audience.  I for one, joined this forum to solve real problems, if they existed.  You have my attention...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Chris Mejia, IAB & DAA
> 
> 
> On Oct 2, 2012, at 12:01 AM, "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.
> >> 
> >>> 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.
> >> 
> > [...]
> >> 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. 
> >> 
> >>> 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.
> > 
> > Rigo
> > 
> 
 		 	   		  
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 13:19:09 UTC

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