Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

Chris:

An individual who expresses a preference not to be tracked should not be forced into a measurement program.   We should respect their request.  I spoke to leading experts who raised this.



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 Jul 26, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Chris Mejia wrote:

> Jeff, please help me understand the ethical dilemma here?  I'm not
> following...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/23/13 12:21 PM, "Jeffrey Chester" <jeff@democraticmedia.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>