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: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 02:15:02 -0400
To: <rob@blaeu.com>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC9D02F1.233A7%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Hi Rob,


On 10/11/12 6:36 PM, "Rob van Eijk" <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:

>Rachel,
>
>With all respect, the TPWG is working towards affirmative opt-in
>consent for third-party web tracking.

I'm a bit surprised by your assertion. While it may be the law of the land
in the Netherlands, I'm not sure that opt-in for cookies is the law of the
land throughout the rest of Europe - and certainly it is not so in the U.S.

And I absolutely didn't think it was the goal of the TPWG to move towards
affirmative consent for third-party web tracking.

This apparent disconnect in goals seems an excellent argument in favor of
David Wainberg's proposal (ISSUE-45 ACTION-246 Clarified proposal on
compliance statements)

In any event, can you help clarify your statement? Thanks.



>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 Friday, 12 October 2012 06:15:50 UTC

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