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 20:45:08 +0000
To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9FF2724793CE3843BF5E46A70AA609A5B70A463F@IAB-NYC-EX1.IAB.local>
"I do not see what these icons (which are not displayed in my particular
UA) bring to the table. Especially not after visiting the AdChoices website. If anything it reeks of window dressing."

Thankfully, the White House, Federal Trade Commission, and most of the United State Congress disagree with you.  


"Moreover, I believe we are in the process of ironing out a standard. A standard that is supposed to prove that industry can self-regulate as far as the USA is concerned, but also to prove that industry is willing to become in compliance with EU legislation."

The EU has laws, a variety of laws I might point out, and I'm sure that all companies intend to come into compliance with the laws of the states that govern their operations.  The Article 29 Working Group participant has pointed out that a W3C standard is unlikely to assist with EU compliance, so let's not hold that goal out as the benchmark for success.  

Beginning tomorrow you will hear a lot more about self regulation in the EU, with a significant degree of support from EU regulators.


"Having a conversation about whether there is any harm in tracking is hardly a ringing endorsement of industry's good faith. That horse has left the barn a while ago. The only reason I am willing to expend time and energy on this is that I believe it is of mutual benefit of both individual citizens and industry to get to a meaningful standard as soon as possible. Dragging this out any further will only mean further infractions of people's privacy in the short term and in the long term endangering the fundamentals of industry because of a legislative backlash. So I am happy to clear up any misunderstandings there may be on the 'why' because that may help us along on our, I hope mutual, goals. I am not happy to have the 'why' of this process being questioned because it implies a lack of commitment towards creating a meaningful and technically sound standard."

I would just point you to Brooks Dobb's most recent counterargument because I couldn't put it any more clearly or concisely.

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 3:42 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Third-Party Web Tracking: Policy and Technology Paper outlining harms of tracking

On 10/11/12 9:10 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.

Dear Mike,

I do not see what these icons (which are not displayed in my particular
UA) bring to the table. Especially not after visiting the AdChoices website. If anything it reeks of window dressing.

Moreover, I believe we are in the process of ironing out a standard. A standard that is supposed to prove that industry can self-regulate as far as the USA is concerned, but also to prove that industry is willing to become in compliance with EU legislation.

Having a conversation about whether there is any harm in tracking is hardly a ringing endorsement of industry's good faith. That horse has left the barn a while ago. The only reason I am willing to expend time and energy on this is that I believe it is of mutual benefit of both individual citizens and industry to get to a meaningful standard as soon as possible. Dragging this out any further will only mean further infractions of people's privacy in the short term and in the long term endangering the fundamentals of industry because of a legislative backlash. So I am happy to clear up any misunderstandings there may be on the 'why' because that may help us along on our, I hope mutual, goals. I am not happy to have the 'why' of this process being questioned because it implies a lack of commitment towards creating a meaningful and technically sound standard.

Regards,

 Walter
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 20:46:10 UTC

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