Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

forcing DNT:1 users to have to agree to further action regarding the use of their data for measurement should raise ethical issues for the industry.  It is an inappropriate request given DNT:1 user intent.  

sent by mobile device. excuse typos please 

On Jul 23, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> While I can't speak for the audience measurement industry, I think they've
> made it clear a few times already why they can't honor DNT:1 as its opt
> out.  Specifically, the audience measurement industry (nor any industry,
> for that matter), cannot rely on the validity of who set DNT:1 and whether
> the user is truly wishing to opt out from audience measurement after
> understanding the value exchange it provides.
> 
> Within providing the audience measurement opt out, they can ensure valid
> explanation of the pros/cons, and they can trust that it truly is a
> user-initiated request (and not set by a router, browser, plug-in, ISP,
> etc.)
> 
> -Vinay
> 
> 
> On 7/23/13 11:48 AM, "John Simpson" <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:
> 
>> I agree with Mike here.  I still don't understand the need for the
>> permitted use. I also don't understand why industry is fine with its own
>> opt-out, but doesn't want to honor DNT:1 as an opt-out.
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 12:10 AM, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Rigo,
>>> 
>>> If user profiles are not used or built then why the necessity for
>>> singling-out? Why have we not been given a definitive reason for
>>> collecting/using UIDs?
>>> 
>>> Making the text work is not the only option, we could just not agree to
>>> the
>>> permitted use. The necessity for one has not been adequately justified.
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
>>> Sent: 23 July 2013 00:20
>>> To: public-tracking@w3.org; rob@blaeu.com
>>> Subject: Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses
>>> 
>>> Rob, 
>>> 
>>> before we take that on, we have to match Kathy's suggestion with Ronan's
>>> interpretation. I have repeatedly asked whether audience measurement is
>>> used
>>> to target users either by changing their view on the web or by allowing
>>> a
>>> real time adaption of web content.
>>> 
>>> I was always told, this is not the case and that sporting
>>> interpretations to
>>> the contrary only engage those who are making them.
>>> This is why Kathy included the bit about the recognized QA mechanism by
>>> the
>>> professional associations.
>>> 
>>> If you have concerns about people giving misinterpretations to Kathy's
>>> text,
>>> please indicate where those are. We can not lock down the practice of a
>>> theoretic audience measurement company interpreting the text as a
>>> permission
>>> to create user profiles under the permitted use of "audience
>>> measurement".
>>> The only thing we can do is to make Kathy's text work.
>>> 
>>> And it may also be clear that a far too creative interpretation of
>>> wording
>>> from a potential compliance specification will not always be accepted
>>> by all
>>> authorities. So before killing Shane's vision of one data store for
>>> permitted uses that you treat respectfully, I want to make sure we are
>>> not
>>> only talking past each other .
>>> 
>>> --Rigo
>>> 
>>> On Monday 22 July 2013 16:34:01 Rob van Eijk wrote:
>>>> Peter,
>>>> 
>>>> I added a proposal for a new general principle for permitted uses to
>>>> the wiki:
>>>> 
>>>> The reason this is relevant, is the recent discussion on audience
>>>> measurement and frequency capping. An identifier set for one permitted
>>>> use is currently not prohibited to use for another permitted use.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> == New general principle for permitted uses ==
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 5.2.5 no matching/syncing between permitted uses
>>>> 
>>>> Data collected or retained by a party for a specific permitted use
>>>> must not be matched or synced with data from other permitted uses.
>>>> 
>>>> Disallowed Example: cookie syncing between permitted uses.
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 19:23:57 UTC