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

Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

From: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:59:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CANZBoGicyYNQhDmEFO63D26O6LFgT683F6hmw5Xo7nYpAR_eqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Jonathan's argument, as I understand it, was that the MRC documents do not
require companies to collect linkable data about every consumer.   Do you
disagree with that?   Do you have a citation in the documents to the
contrary?

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net> wrote:

>   Jonathan,
>
>  I sit on the MRC's Digital Audit Review Committee.  As such, I have
> attended countless MRC audits, and am asked to apply the MRC guidelines to
> the audited companies— I do this, every week.  Unless you are accusing me
> of lying or not being qualified (please be transparent and direct if you
> are), then I am attesting to the fact that data retention, of any data that
> relates to the bought/billed unit (impression, click, action, etc.) is
> required per the guidelines.  The issue is by no means closed, nor are you
> qualified to close it.
>
>  If you want to provide evidence to the contrary, please contact the MRC
> yourself and do your homework.  You are a Stanford grad student,
> representing Stanford University in this forum— I can only assume that
> conducting thorough primary research is still something valued at your
> institution.  So if you believe you are right (and I am wrong), then do the
> real primary research (call the MRC, interview them, etc.) and provide
> concrete evidence to discredit my testimony as an expert in this domain.
>  But simply reading a document online and pulling parts of it out of
> context to suit your ill-placed argument, is not only detrimental to this
> working group's mission, it reflects poorly on the institution you are
> representing.
>
>  Finally, I'd like to know who your academic  advisor is, or the official
> at Stanford who supervises your contribution to the W3C?  Since your
> membership to this forum seems to be associated with your student
> affiliation at Stanford University, I'd be interested in understanding
> whether your views and actions here are those of the University, or just
> yourself as a private citizen?
>
>
>  Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group |
> Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB
>
>   From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:14 PM
> To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
> Cc: Kimon Zorbas - IAB Europe <vp@iabeurope.eu>, Jeffrey Chester <
> jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>,
> Richard Weaver - ComScore <rweaver@comscore.com>, "John Simpson ," <
> john@consumerwatchdog.org>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <
> public-tracking@w3.org>
>
> Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
> Resent-From: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:15 PM
>
>   Here's my concrete proposal: The MRC issue should be CLOSED.  As
> always, if a working group member produces new information, we should take
> it into account.
>
>  Background: The MRC issue was RAISED many months ago.  We still haven't
> been presented with an iota of evidence that the MRC guidelines require
> collection of user data.  A plain reading of the MRC Minimum Standards cuts
> against that view.  So does a plain reading of the draft MRC guidelines
> on digital video.
>
>  The issue appears to rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of the MRC
> guidelines.  The MRC, in general, specifies *how* a user's behavior is
> measured.  It does not address *whether* the behavior is measured in the
> first place.
>
>  I agree with Brooks—much of the MRC's language is antiquated or
> domain-specific.  But, for our purposes, the import seems reasonably clear.
>  And to the extent our plain reading is inaccurate, again, working group
> members are welcome to present that new information.
>
>  Jonathan
>
>  On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote:
>
>    Jonathan,
>
>  I have no objection to, and indeed it does make sense to, learn(ing)
> what MRC actually requires.  In the meantime, while we agree that the full
> extent of what is required is not yet yet fully understood, it is helpful
> to avoid misleading folks that a standard which speaks to diaries, busy
> signals and facsimiles and was started in the 60s has specifically
> anticipated DNT signals at the rate likely to be seen by default settings;
> it hasn't.
>
>  -Brooks
>
>  --
>
> *Brooks Dobbs, CIPP *| Chief Privacy Officer |*KBM Group* | Part of the
> Wunderman Network
> (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | *kbmg.com*
> *brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com
>
>
> *
> This email – including attachments – may contain confidential information.
> If you are not the intended recipient,
>  do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
> immediately and delete the message.
>
>   From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:49 AM
> To: Brooks Dobbs <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>
> Cc: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>, Jeffrey Chester <
> jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>,
> "Richard Weaver (Comscore)" <rweaver@comscore.com>, "John Simpson ," <
> john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <
> public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
>
>   Brooks,
>
>  Some members of the working group have claimed they require a Do Not
> Track exemption to accommodate the MRC Minimum Standards for content
> measurement.  The nation is that the MRC Minimum Standards *require* some
> data collection about users.  Before even considering such an exemption, it
> seems prudent to validate the premise—we should look into whether the MRC
> Minimum Standards actually require any data collection.
>
>  I agree that the MRC's document reads antiquated in many places.  That
> should come as little surprise—it traces back to 1964.  (Latest version:
> December 2011.)  The document explicitly does not, however, limit itself to
> old technology.  In the provision we're discussing, it talks about "
> diaries" and "tape records" (hah!), but it also includes "other primary
> sources of audience data."  (It seemed to me uncontroversial to elide
> "diaries" and "tape records" to save the group a few moments of reading.)
>  Since the working group members who invoke MRC consistently cite an
> eleven-month source data retention requirement, and this is the only
> eleven-month source data retention requirement in the document, it seems
> reasonable to conclude this is the relevant provision.
>
>  So no, no straw man here.  I'm attempting to honestly unpack the claim
> that the MRC Minimum Standards require data collection about users.  It
> seems to me that, in a plain reading, they do not.  Until a working group
> member produces evidence otherwise, we should be safe in dropping the
> proposed "relevant self-regulatory verification requirements" exemption.
>
>  Jonathan
>
>
>  On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote:
>
>    Jonathan,
>
>  Did you really just accuse someone of creating a straw man and then
> raise this as an example?
>
>  Let's go back and add the actual words left out by your ellipsis:
>
>    1.
>
>    Each rating service shall maintain, for at least eleven months from
>    the end of the period covered by the report, all diaries and interviews (or
>    a complete facsimile thereof), tape records and/or other primary sources of
>    audience data. These shall include material actually used in the
>    preparation of published rating reports as well as material collected but
>    not used. In addition, each service shall maintain records of:
>
>    B) All unsuccessful attempts to obtain information, including- but not
>    limited to - refusals, not at home, cases requiring further discussion
>    and/or correspondence (e.g., with another member of the household), busy
>    signals (phone), and returns from postal authorities.
>
>  It is pretty clear from reading this in full context that this has
> nothing to do with web measurement (diaries, interviews, tape records were
> conveniently redacted).  Even the language about unsuccessful attempts is
> unrelated.  DNT ad calls are real ad calls that result in ad responses –
> there is nothing "unsuccessful" about them.
>
>  So none of that is meant to defend or degrade the MRC.  I have no idea
> if they are secretly plotting to disenfranchise the hispanic community.
>  Maybe they are and that should be dealt with outside this group.  I do
> know they provide measurement validation services that allow the entire ad
> economy to work (not just Behavioral).  Per my previous post – and to mix
> metaphors – if no one trusts the scales no one is paying for advertising.
>  It has been said before, but is obviously worth repeating, upsetting core
> measurement of a multi-tens of billion dollar ecosystem doesn't seem
> consistent with the charter and is not an acceptable outcome.
>
>  -Brooks
>
>
>  --
>
> *Brooks Dobbs, CIPP *| Chief Privacy Officer |*KBM Group*| Part of the
> Wunderman Network
> (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | *kbmg.com*
> *brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com
>
>
> *
> This email – including attachments – may contain confidential information.
> If you are not the intended recipient,
>  do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
> immediately and delete the message.
>
>   From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:41 AM
> To: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>
> Cc: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "Amy Colando (LCA)" <
> acolando@microsoft.com>, Brooks Dobbs <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, "Richard
> Weaver (Comscore)" <rweaver@comscore.com>, "John Simpson ," <
> john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <
> public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
>
>   This is our second trip through the purported MRC justification.  In
> our last visit, I pointed out that the MRC guidelines anticipate that not
> all users will have data collected.
>
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote:
>
>  The MRC document explicitly accommodates consumers opting out of data
> collection.  Page 8:
>
>  Each rating service shall maintain, for at least eleven months from the
> end of the period covered by the report, all . . . primary sources of
> audience data. These shall include material actually used in the
> preparation of published rating reports as well as material collected but
> not used. In addition, each service shall maintain records of:
> . . .
> b. All unsuccessful attempts to obtain information, including- but not
> limited to - refusals . . . .
>
>   Until a working group member can furnish an MRC or MRC-like
> *requirement* that users have their browsing histories collected, this
> entire conversation seems moot.
>
>  Jonathan
>
>
>  On Monday, October 22, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Kimon Zorbas wrote:
>
>   In Europe, we have Jics, industry committees, that run measurement in
> (as far as I know) each country.
> There is no agreed standard across Europe.
> Sometimes they use their own technology (less often) sometimes partner
> with companies such as Nielsen, comscore, Gemius, spring, etc. I am by no
> means as expert on Jics. Unlike the MRC, Jics do not certify but mandate /
> run the measurement, which de facto becomes THE standard in those countries.
>
> Colleagues from comscore / Nielsen might be better placed to respond.
>
> Kimon
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Jeffrey Chester" <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
> To: "Kimon Zorbas" <vp@iabeurope.eu>
> Cc: "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <
> Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>, "Richard Weaver (Comscore)" <rweaver@comscore.com>,
> "John Simpson ," <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <
> public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
> Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 8:22 pm
>
>
>
> Kimon:    Our measurement companies in US are not congressional chartered.
>  Can you send the names of the organizations you have in mind?
>
>
>   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 22, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Kimon Zorbas wrote:
>
>    I also would like to point out that measurement in Europe works
> somehow different with respect to organisational setup. We would like those
> entities,not setup by the equivalent of European or national Congress, to
> be reflected in the text. Would anyone have an issue?
>
> Kind regards,
> Kimon
>
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>
> To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>, "Jeffrey Chester" <
> jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "Richard Weaver (Comscore)" <
> rweaver@comscore.com>
> Cc: "John Simpson ," <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org"
> <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
> Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 6:30 pm
>
>
>
>  You beat me to it Brooks. I'll just add my own analogy that MRC
> accreditation is a way of ensuring accurate and consistent counting
> methodologies of clicks and impressions, which form the basis for
> calculating the amount that advertisers are billed and sites are paid. The
> analogy that springs to mind is the state agencies that certify that gas
> stations are measuring gallons of gas accurately and billing consumers
> accordingly.
>
> The reason that you see so many companies on the MRC accreditation page is
> that this certification as to accuracy of measurement is vitally important
> for providing online advertising services, whether targeted or untargeted.
> I believe your reference to Hispanic measurement refers perhaps to
> demographics in relation to TV geo advertising markets; if so, I don't
> understand the relevance to our discussion.
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
>  ------------------------------
> From: Dobbs, Brooks
> Sent: 10/22/2012 9:12 AM
> To: Jeffrey Chester; Weaver, Richard
> Cc: John Simpson ,; Amy Colando (LCA); public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
>
>   Jeff,
>
>  I think you are missing the MRC's role in the ecosystem here.  We may
> even need to do a 101 on the ad serving economy as compared to a more
> tangible industry -  say pork bellies in the commodities market.  If this
> is obvious, please forgive the review, but I think an analogy is helpful
> here.
>
>  If I spend $150k on 200k lbs of frozen pork bellies at 75 cents a pound
> a huge tractor trailer(s) show up and I see frozen pork bellies.  I can
> further weigh them on an NTEP certified scale, and if it turns out that
> only 180k lbs are there I can negotiate a $15k discount.  We can agree on
> this because even though the bellies were weighed at my facility, they
> scales where certified by an organization both buyer and seller trust.
>
>  If alternatively, I spend $150k on 10k CPMs of advertising on
> Big1stParty.com at $15/CPM targeted to IP addresses in the Spokane WA
> area from 4pm to 7pm local time – where's the beef?  I live in Atlanta.  If
> the ad buy was delivered correctly, I should see exactly ZERO of the ads.
>  How then does the purchaser have confidence that all 10k CPMs occurred?
>  Advertisers have this confidence because they traditionally pay on numbers
> that their system records, a log of "quality" deliveries.  But the obvious
> question is then – what about the seller?  How does he have confidence in
> the buyer's numbers?  Couldn't the buyer have just thrown away 5k
> impressions as invalid so as to avoid paying for them?  MRC is the answer
> here.  MRC will give both parties confidence that they have a common frame
> of reference from which to conduct business.  The buyer (and/or seller)
> will have his system MRC certified and there is an agreed upon counting
> standardto use as a basis for payment.
>
>  If you are suggesting that accommodating MRC audits shouldn't play a
> role in these discussions, the argument is akin to saying no one should
> certify scales in the commodities market.
>
>  -Brooks
>  --
>
> *Brooks Dobbs, CIPP *| Chief Privacy Officer |*KBM Group*| Part of the
> Wunderman Network
> (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | *kbmg.com*
> *brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com
>
> <image[50].png>
> *
> This email – including attachments – may contain confidential information.
> If you are not the intended recipient,
>  do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender
> immediately and delete the message.
>
>   From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
> Date: Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:49 PM
> To: "Weaver, Richard" <rweaver@comscore.com>
> Cc: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Amy Colando <
> acolando@microsoft.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:50 PM
>
>  Thanks.  I hope we aren't suggesting that somehow industry set
> guidelines for its own MRC should in any way impact our work to provide
> user choice in a meaningful manner for DNT.  The MRC is a media/industry
> industry run initiative, involved in a wide range of TV and online
> measurement tools that play a key role in the user targeting experience:
> http://mediaratingcouncil.org/Accredited%20Services.htm
>
>  Companies involved with the Council include Google, Disney, Adobe,
> comScore, AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc.   I suggest that it's guidelines do
> not reflect the privacy concerns addressed by this group.  The history of
> ratings, as many of us know, has been quite controversial (such as Hispanic
> measurement).  Congress has been critical of many of the industry
> practices.    Is someone suggesting that there be a data retention source
> period for one year or more to please the MRC?
>
>
>
>
>   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 17, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Weaver, Richard wrote:
>
>
>
>  I hope Chris Mejia won’t mind that I’m cutting and pasting his previous
> description of MRC:
>
>
>  According to the Media Rating Council (MRC), the normal retention period
> for "source data" required for industry accreditation of third-party
> audience estimates is 1-year, as documented in their published standards: "
> *Minimum Standards for Media Rating Research*" (available for download at
> http://mediaratingcouncil.org/MRC%20Standards.htm).  Depending on the
> case however (and on a case-by-case basis), special concessions may be made
> outside of this standard from time to time as deemed appropriate by the
> CPAs/auditor and the MRC.
>
>  *About the MRC, their mission and authority:*
>  In the early 1960’s a U.S. Congressional Committee held hearings on the
> purpose and accuracy of audience research and considered regulation related
> to the TV and Radio industries.  These public hearings are commonly
> referred to as the “Harris Committee Hearings on Broadcast Ratings.”  After
> investigation and extensive testimony the Committee determined that
> Industry self-regulation, including independent audits of rating services
> was preferable to government intervention.  The Harris Committee hearings
> resulted in the formation of an Industry-funded organization to review and
> accredit audience rating services called the Broadcast Rating Council (now
> referred to as the MRC).
>
> Aligned with the actions deemed necessary by the House Committee, the
> activities of the MRC include:
>
>    - The establishment and administration of Minimum Standards for rating
>    operations;
>    - The accreditation of rating services on the basis of information
>    submitted by such services; and
>    - Auditing, through independent CPA firms, of the activities of the
>    rating services.
>
>
>  The Media Rating Council seeks to improve the quality of audience
> measurement by rating services and to provide a better understanding of the
> applications (and limitations) of rating information.  The Bylaws of the
> MRC document the organization’s mission as: “to secure for the media
> industry and related users audience measurement services that are valid,
> reliable and effective; to evolve and determine minimum disclosure and
> ethical criteria for media audience measurement services; and to provide
> and administer an audit system designed to inform users as to whether such
> audience measurements are conducted in conformance with the criteria and
> procedures developed.”  This mission was established with the support of
> the House Committee.
>
>  More on the MRC at http://mediaratingcouncil.org/History.htm
>
>
>
>
>  Richard Weaver Deputy Privacy Officer | comScore, Inc. *(NASDAQ:SCOR)*
>  o +1 (703) 438-2354 | rweaver@comscore.com
>
> ...........................................................................................................
>
>
>
>  *Introducing Mobile Metrix 2.0 - The next generation of mobile
> behavioral measurement
> *www.comscore.com/MobileMetrix<http://www.comscore.com/Products_Services/Product_Index/Mobile_Metrix_2.0>
>
>
>     *From:* John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org<john@consumerwatchdog.org>
> ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:14 PM
> *To:* Amy Colando
> *Cc:* public-tracking@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
>
>  I'm sorry, maybe I missed something -- it certainly wouldn't be the first
> time -- but what is MRC accreditation?
>
>
>    ----------
>   John M. Simpson
>   Consumer Advocate
>   Consumer Watchdog
>    2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
>    Santa Monica, CA,90405
>   Tel: 310-392-7041
>   Cell: 310-292-1902
>   www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
>   john@consumerwatchdog.org
>
>   On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Amy Colando (LCA) wrote:
>
>
>   Hi John.
>
>   This was intended to address the MRC accreditation scenario that was
> previously raised.
>
>    *From:* John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org<john@consumerwatchdog.org>
> ]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:19 PM
> *To:* Amy Colando (LCA)
> *Cc:* public-tracking@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
>
>   Amy,
>
>    A clarifying question: Can you please give a use case for what sort of
> data would be collected for "relevant self-regulatory requirements"?
>    Thanks,
>    John
>
>     ----------
>    John M. Simpson
>    Consumer Advocate
>    Consumer Watchdog
>     2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
>     Santa Monica, CA,90405
>    Tel: 310-392-7041
>    Cell: 310-292-1902
>    www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
>    john@consumerwatchdog.org
>
>    On Oct 17, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Amy Colando (LCA) wrote:
>
>
>
>     Apologies that I have lost track of Action number, which I will look
> up later.  Many thanks to Vinay, MeMe and David W. for assisting with this
> text.
>
>    *6.1.1.9 Compliance with Local Law and Public Purpose*
>
>    *Normative:* Regardless of DNT signal, information MAY be collected,
> retained, used and shared for complying with applicable laws, regulations,
> legal obligations and other public purposes, including, but not limited to,
> intellectual property protection, delivery of emergency services, and
> relevant self-regulatory verification requirements.
>
>    *Non-normative: *This specification does not purport to require
> parties to breach existing contractual obligations.  At the same time, it
> is expected that parties implementing this specification should not enter
> into new contractual obligations that have the effect of circumventing
> specification requirements. This specification recognizes that there are
> legitimate self-regulatory regimes that both protect consumer interests and
> govern certain data practices, and the specification does not intend to
> conflict with these regimes. However, parties should whenever possible
> adhere to the letter and spirit of this specification, and should not look
> to such regimes as merely a means to circumvent the specification.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


image_74_.png
(image/png attachment: image_74_.png)

image_67_.png
(image/png attachment: image_67_.png)

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 21:59:53 UTC

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