RE: change proposal to issue-25

John,

Thank you for the explanation - that's helpful.  I don't believe DNT can be the end-all-be-all privacy control mechanism.  As Vinay pointed out, granularity and variability of user controls will be required on the internet as there will be different situations and forms of tracking we're working to address.

If we're speaking only to behavioral advertising, then we should remove much of the rest of the types of issues have been piled on in the conversation and simply state DNT is meant to address behavioral advertising.  This is something the group has not been willing to do even though we agreed BT was the impetus for the working group.

If instead, we want to continue to pile on (DNT covers any and all online activity) then we'll need to be open to more flexibility in offering users controls that address different activities.

DNT for ALL online 3rd party activity - in the form of de-identification
-- AND -
Persistent Opt-Outs for BT - in the form of DAA/NAI opt-out platforms.

- Shane

From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 2:31 PM
To: Shane M Wiley
Cc: Jeffrey Chester; Mike O'Neill; public-tracking@w3.org; 'Justin Brookman'
Subject: Re: change proposal to issue-25

What I was trying to suggest is that my understanding of DNT is that it be a universal and persistent method of opting out of tracking as the FTC proposed in its privacy report. If in the spec you allow data to be collected when DNT:1 is sent, but require an alternative method of opting out by going to industry association website, you have undercut the universality of DNT....

I don't claim to own anything.




On Oct 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:


John,

No one working group member owns the "purpose of DNT" - that's the point of the working group effort to arrive at a consensus end-point that collectively develops "the purpose".  Artificially constraining the group to not be able to think outside of the box and be flexible to real-world situations doesn't help advance our collective goal (at least as I understand it).

- Shane

From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org<http://consumerwatchdog.org>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 3:58 PM
To: Jeffrey Chester
Cc: Mike O'Neill; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>; 'Justin Brookman'
Subject: Re: change proposal to issue-25

In addition the proposal to have a separate opt-out mechanism undercuts the purpose of DNT.


On Oct 2, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>> wrote:



I concur.  There has been insufficient evidence submitted on measurement as a permitted use,.


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 2, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Mike O'Neill wrote:



Justin,

Here is my friendly amendment to Lee Tien's change proposal for Audience Measurement.

Simply remove from the TPC Audience Measurement as a permitted use.

Justification.

It is straightforward to arrange that agreed panel members can have their user-agents override any DNT:1 general preference on requests to audience measurement servers using a web-wide UGE or with an OOBC signal. Insufficient evidence has been submitted showing why standard statistical methods extrapolating panel observations would not work, and why it would be necessary to use persistent unique identifiers on every request irrespective of someone's preference not to be tracked.


Mike