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

Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

From: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:00:24 +0000
To: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCAD79AE.26223%chris.mejia@iab.net>
Ed, to set the record clear, MRC standards were surfaced when some working group participants questioned if there are other requirements on the advertising industry to retain data.  MRC auditing and accreditation were mentioned as one such requirement.  Jeff Chester asked me to cite the MRC requirement— which I did.  Those who want to question the MRC on it's requirement or understand it further, should do so, via the proper channel (with the MRC directly).  Having detailed discussions about the MRC standards and their justification here however, without representatives from the MRC at the table, is in my opinion not appropriate.


Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB


From: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com<mailto:ed@felten.com>>
Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:13 AM
To: David Wainberg - NAI <david@networkadvertising.org<mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>>
Cc: 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: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 7:13 AM

I can't speak for John, but I asked my question of Chris because I was under the impression that Chris (and possibly others) believe that the MRC documents are relevant to this group's discussion.   If that is not the case, and there is general agreement that the MRC documents are not relevant to this group's work, I would be only too happy to see this thread end.

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org<mailto:david@networkadvertising.org>> wrote:
Hi John,


On 10/23/12 8:06 PM, John Simpson wrote:

It seems extremely relevant to this Working Group to understand the answers to the clarifying questions that Ed and I have raised.  I don't see why a call is necessary for that.

I disagree that this is a relevant conversation. It is not for this group to deeply examine, interpret, and pass judgment on the requirements of another organization. As this group has decided to take the approach of permitted uses, then measurement and auditing are permitted uses or not. Attempts to now be highly prescriptive about the nature of those uses are unproductive. Likewise, attempts to anticipate every possible sneaky way a bad actor might try to circumvent this voluntary standard are also unproductive.

On the other hand, if we could start with a list of specific types of data and specific risks associated with that data, and then target our solutions to those risks, that would be, in my view, a more effective way forward. (Or, perhaps, we could work from a definition of tracking.) To get started, here's a list of data elements typically available to a third party ad network. I'm sure others on the list can add to it.


cookie ID

IP address

user agent

date and time

referrer URL

Regards,

David


I ask you again to please answer them.

----------
John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
Santa Monica, CA,90405
Tel: 310-392-7041<tel:310-392-7041>
Cell: 310-292-1902<tel:310-292-1902>
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 15:01:27 UTC

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