Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

Chris, I think email is a much better forum for this. You can lay out an
example in detail, and we can digest it. On a call, discussing details
is quite a bit more difficult.

On 10/23/2012 04:52 PM, Chris Mejia wrote:
> John,
>
> I fully understood the questions.  And I answered them.  Once again
> (and for the last time please), let's get this added to the agenda for
> discussion on a working group call— I'm happy to discuss it there.  I
> am not going to continue writing this statement, so if you (and
> others) are genuinely interested in having a civil conversation on the
> matter, and you feel it's important, I'll be happy to accommodate that
> conversation on a W3C working group call.  Short of that (or in
> addition to it), I would suggest that you approach the MRC directly
> with your questions— they have a process for dealing with such
> questions.  In my opinion, this is not the appropriate forum to
> discuss the ins and outs of other organization's standards and
> requirements.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
>
> Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group |
> Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB
>
>
>
> From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org
> <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>>
> Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 4:40 PM
> To: Chris Mejia - IAB <chris.mejia@iab.net <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>
> Cc: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu <mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>,
> "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com
> <mailto:Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>>, Kimon Zorbas - IAB Europe
> <vp@iabeurope.eu <mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>, Jeffrey Chester
> <jeff@democraticmedia.org <mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>, "Amy
> Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com
> <mailto:acolando@microsoft.com>>, Richard Weaver - ComScore
> <rweaver@comscore.com <mailto:rweaver@comscore.com>>, W3C DNT Working
> Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org
> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
> Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
>
> Chris,
>
> I've always understood that the list is place to discuss issues and
> ask clarifying questions.  It saves time on calls and generally has
> been very helpful and productive. I asked my questions, "Exactly what
> data in what form would need to be collected to meet MRC requirements
> when DNT is enabled? How would that differ from the data that would be
> collected when DNT is not enabled?" in that clarifying spirit.  I am
> not debating, not arguing, not building a record. I simply am seeking
> to understand the proposal that's on the table as an open issue.
>
> Perhaps I am unduly dull witted and dense. For that I apologize to the
> entire Working Group. Nonetheless, I suspect there is at least one or
> two others who would appreciate understanding the proposal.  Why won't
> you simply explain, "Exactly what data in what form would need to be
> collected to meet MRC requirements when DNT is enabled? How would that
> differ from the data that would be collected when DNT is not enabled?"
>
> To your first point, I see you did respond to Ed Felton and I
> appreciate that. However, I think he was also simply seeking
> clarification. While you responded, you didn't answer his question.
>  He said that Jonathan's view was that the MRC documents do not
> require companies to collect linkable data about every consumer.  
>
> He than asked, "Do you disagree with that?" and   "Do you have a
> citation in the documents to the contrary?"
>
> Your response was, "Jonathan's argument is not valid here (we have
> coved that twice), nor is he a domain expert.  I have presented the
> evidence to this forum and I am attesting to it in my capacity as an
> industry expert in this domain— what else would you like?"
>
> The clarifying question is, "Do you believe that the MRC documents
> require companies to collect linkable data about every consumer?"
>  That seems simple enough, the answer is either yes or no.  Then the
> second point, if yes, where is that in the documents?
>
> I am not arguing with you or anyone else. I am simply trying to
> understand.
>
> 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 <http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
> john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>
>
> On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Chris Mejia wrote:
>
>> John, I already answered Ed's email— it's in the record on this
>> thread.  To your second point, I'm happy to discuss this issue on a
>> W3C working group call should the chairs see fit to include it on the
>> agenda.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group |
>> Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB
>>
>> From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org
>> <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>>
>> Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 3:55 PM
>> To: Chris Mejia - IAB <chris.mejia@iab.net <mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>
>> Cc: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu
>> <mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com
>> <mailto:Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>>, Kimon Zorbas - IAB Europe
>> <vp@iabeurope.eu <mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>, Jeffrey Chester
>> <jeff@democraticmedia.org <mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>, "Amy
>> Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com
>> <mailto:acolando@microsoft.com>>, Richard Weaver - ComScore
>> <rweaver@comscore.com <mailto:rweaver@comscore.com>>, W3C DNT Working
>> Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org
>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
>> Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
>>
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> As the fellow who started this thread simply by asking "what sort of
>> data would be collected for 'relevant self-regulatory requirements?',
>> I am shocked and appalled by the completely unprofessional and
>>  outrageously personal  nasty tone it has taken. Some apologies to
>> the entire working group are in order.
>>
>> Let's all cool off a bit here and then could someone please answer Ed
>> Felton's questions, which I will repeat:
>> "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?"
>>
>> Second could someone please answer these questions:
>> Exactly what data in what form would need to be collected to meet MRC
>> requirements when DNT is enabled? How would that differ from the data
>> that would be collected when DNT is not enabled?
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> 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 <http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/>
>> john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>
>>
>> On Oct 23, 2012, at 2:49 PM, Chris Mejia 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 <mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>
>>> Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:14 PM
>>> To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com
>>> <mailto:Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>>
>>> Cc: Kimon Zorbas - IAB Europe <vp@iabeurope.eu
>>> <mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org
>>> <mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>, "Amy Colando (LCA)"
>>> <acolando@microsoft.com <mailto:acolando@microsoft.com>>, Richard
>>> Weaver - ComScore <rweaver@comscore.com
>>> <mailto:rweaver@comscore.com>>, "John Simpson ,"
>>> <john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>>, W3C
>>> DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://kbmg.com/>*
>>>> _brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com <x-msg://290/brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>
>>>>
>>>> <image[74].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: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu <mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:49 AM
>>>> To: Brooks Dobbs <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com <mailto:brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>>
>>>> Cc: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu <mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>,
>>>> Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org
>>>> <mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>, "Amy Colando (LCA)"
>>>> <acolando@microsoft.com <mailto:acolando@microsoft.com>>, "Richard
>>>> Weaver (Comscore)" <rweaver@comscore.com
>>>> <mailto:rweaver@comscore.com>>, "John Simpson ,"
>>>> <john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>>,
>>>> "public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>"
>>>> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto: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:
>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft Word - MRC Minimum Standards, December 2011 added A,7,d.doc
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>17.
>>>>>     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
>>>>> <http://kbmg.com/>*
>>>>> _brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com <x-msg://290/brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> <image[67].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: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu
>>>>> <mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>
>>>>> Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:41 AM
>>>>> To: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu <mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>
>>>>> Cc: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org
>>>>> <mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>, "Amy Colando (LCA)"
>>>>> <acolando@microsoft.com <mailto:acolando@microsoft.com>>, Brooks
>>>>> Dobbs <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com <mailto:brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>>,
>>>>> "Richard Weaver (Comscore)" <rweaver@comscore.com
>>>>> <mailto:rweaver@comscore.com>>, "John Simpson ,"
>>>>> <john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>>,
>>>>> "public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>"
>>>>> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>
>>>>>> To: "Kimon Zorbas" <vp@iabeurope.eu <mailto:vp@iabeurope.eu>>
>>>>>> Cc: "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com
>>>>>> <mailto:acolando@microsoft.com>>, "Dobbs, Brooks"
>>>>>> <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com <mailto:Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>>, "Richard
>>>>>> Weaver (Comscore)" <rweaver@comscore.com
>>>>>> <mailto:rweaver@comscore.com>>, "John Simpson ,"
>>>>>> <john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>>,
>>>>>> "public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>"
>>>>>> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto: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 <http://www.democraticmedia.org/>
>>>>>> www.digitalads.org <http://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
>>>>>>> <mailto:acolando@microsoft.com>>
>>>>>>> To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>>, "Jeffrey Chester"
>>>>>>> <jeff@democraticmedia.org <mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>,
>>>>>>> "Richard Weaver (Comscore)" <rweaver@comscore.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:rweaver@comscore.com>>
>>>>>>> Cc: "John Simpson ," <john@consumerwatchdog.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>>, "public-tracking@w3.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org
>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>> <mailto: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 <http://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
>>>>>>> <http://kbmg.com/>*
>>>>>>> _brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com <x-msg://290/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>> <mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>
>>>>>>> Date: Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:49 PM
>>>>>>> To: "Weaver, Richard" <rweaver@comscore.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:rweaver@comscore.com>>
>>>>>>> Cc: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>>, Amy Colando
>>>>>>> <acolando@microsoft.com <mailto:acolando@microsoft.com>>,
>>>>>>> "public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>"
>>>>>>> <public-tracking@w3.org <mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose
>>>>>>> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org
>>>>>>> <mailto: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 <http://www.democraticmedia.org/>
>>>>>>> www.digitalads.org <http://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
>>>>>>>> <mailto: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] 
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:14 PM
>>>>>>>> *To:* Amy Colando
>>>>>>>> *Cc:* public-tracking@w3.org <mailto: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 <http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/>
>>>>>>>> john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto: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] 
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:19 PM
>>>>>>>> *To:* Amy Colando (LCA)
>>>>>>>> *Cc:* public-tracking@w3.org <mailto: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 <http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/>
>>>>>>>> john@consumerwatchdog.org <mailto: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[67].png>
>>
>


-- 
Dan Auerbach
Staff Technologist
Electronic Frontier Foundation
dan@eff.org
415 436 9333 x134