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

RE: Third-Party Web Tracking: Policy and Technology Paper outlining harms of tracking

From: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:10:25 +0000
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9FF2724793CE3843BF5E46A70AA609A5B70A41A0@IAB-NYC-EX1.IAB.local>
Walter,

Please revisit the website you provided and you will see that it is both ad supported and demonstrates exactly how users receive greater transparency and have more control today than they did a decade ago.  The ad on the site displays one of the Trillion+ AdChoices icons that deliver transparency to consumers every single month here in the United States.  In addition, more than 2 million Americans have exercised choice through the DAA opt out page over the past year.  Therefore, I have to respectfully disagree with your conclusions.

Mike Zaneis
SVP & General Counsel
Interactive Advertising Bureau
(202) 253-1466

Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis



-----Original Message-----
From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl] 
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:56 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Third-Party Web Tracking: Policy and Technology Paper outlining harms of tracking

On 10/11/12 8:44 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
> Hi Walter - Thanks for forwarding. This paper was published in 2002, 
> correct?

That is correct.

To put things in perspective, I don't think anyone in the working group will argue that there is less data collection going on than was the case in 2002. Neither do I expect anyone on the list to argue that the typical user has more transparancy and control over this data collection either. So if anything, the paper's conclusions are probably more valid than they were in 2002.

Moreover, I do not necessarily agree with the premises of this paper, since from my perspective privacy is a fundamental human right, just like freedom of expression and bodily integrity, that is non-negotiable.
It is industry that should provide that there is a pressing social need that outweighs this fundamental right.

It is more that I want to have a genuine conversation about the issues and for that I hope it is helpful to frame it in a business perspective every once in a while. I think it is rather telling that even a purely utilitarian approach tells us that in the end it is just not in the interest of business to build business models on essentially stalking people. Because that is not an ethical or sustainable practice.

Regards,

 Walter
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 19:11:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:36 UTC