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: Rachel Thomas <RThomas@the-dma.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:06:17 -0400
To: "'rob@blaeu.com'" <rob@blaeu.com>, "'public-tracking@w3.org'" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F7D4F7192203374D9821E66FADA2F10804B8D003EE@dma-ny-exch01.inside.the-dma.org>
Rob, I  hear where you are coming from.  Perhaps it is a cultural difference, but my hearty disagreement with a comment is not accompanied by any ill will, and so my very best is genuine.  

Though my response to Mike did begin in the vein of discussing harm (or lack thereof) to consumers, but I agree that further discussion of opt-in/out deserves a separate subject and so will not comment further on it in this thread.

Sincerely,
Rachel

Rachel Nyswander Thomas, CIPP
Vice President, Government Affairs
Direct Marketing Association
rthomas@the-dma.org
Office: 202-861-2443
Cell: 202-560-2335

Sent via BlackBerry - please excuse typos.  

----- Original Message -----
From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 06:36 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Third-Party Web Tracking: Policy and Technology Paper outlining  harms of tracking

Rachel,

With all respect, the TPWG is working towards affirmative opt-in 
consent for third-party web tracking. Let me name just one example: the 
principle of meaningful interaction. Also, for me at least, the enabling 
of DNT as a means to express user consent through browser settings and 
the actual default DNT value (on, off, unset) are two distinct different 
things.

Maybe it is a cultural difference, but "Taking issue with" in 
conjunction with marketing DAA conducts/guidelines/papers/definitions 
and closing with "very best" do sound thorny to me. Since many of us 
have been trying very hard to make progress for over a year to create 
added value for DNT in comparison to the current opt-out system, it 
appears to me as counter productive. The topic is on developing thoughts 
on harms of tracking. Please contribute to this topic or change the 
subject line.

Rob

Rachel Thomas schreef op 2012-10-11 23:40:
> Mike, your comment here...
>
> "When user consent for tracking becomes the norm – either through
> the DNT indication or its replacement if this process fails..."
>
> ...sounds as though you believe the W3C TPWG is working toward an
> outcoming in which affirmative opt-in consent is required. In other
> words, a Do Not Track standard with a "default on." That is not my
> understanding of what we have been discussing at all.
>
> I also take issue with this statement:
>
> "When consumers see their rights are being properly recognised they
> will be more prepared to trust online commerce which will result in a
> larger total market."
>
> Consumer trust has been forged, sustained and strengthened through 
> the
> provision of notice and opt-out choice for more than 100 years --
> across every channel used to communicate with consumers, from mail to
> email to online marketing. (DMA's Guidelines for Ethical Business
> Practice have advocated such notice and opt-out choice as the best
> practice across every marketing channel for more than 40 years.)
>
> The vast growth of the online environment is itself a testament to 
> the
> fact that notice and opt-out choice are the most appropriate means to
> ensure consumer trust -- and consumer satisfaction -- in the
> experiences, products, services and content that they enjoy online. 
> To
> suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
>
> Very best,
> Rachel


Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 23:01:14 UTC

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