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: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:51:08 -0400
Cc: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-id: <302F41EE-A958-46F5-AA93-53405EB00B7D@democraticmedia.org>
To: Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>
Mike:  Thanks for pointing out the Springer page and icon link, because it helps illustrate how ineffective the system has been designed.  When you click on the nearly invisible and vague icon at:  http://www.springerlink.com/content/vh9769lbpr09486c/?MUD=MP

You get sent to Google's Adsense AdChoices page.  When you read the description, you would never know about Google/Doubleclick data targeting practices.  Or the privacy issues involved.  It's a disconnect from what Google tells advertisers at such sites as:  http://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/insights/emea/

If you click on the AdChoices icon on that page you go to another Google page that doesn't relate:  http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=185665

On the same Google page you can click on "Learn More" and go to a dense NAI page that also doesn't effectively convey the risks (  http://www.networkadvertising.org/consumer-education/education-resources

I could go on.  But it's a great case study on why AdChoices is so lacking.  


Jeff


Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org
www.digitalads.org
202-986-2220

On Oct 11, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Mike Zaneis wrote:

> 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 19:51:58 UTC

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