Re: Propose to drop from the strawman: ISSUE-93

Apologies for chiming back in late.

Nick is right that I originally raised this in re Issue 59 ­ notifying 1st
parties ­ but my real question is not with notification of DNT, but the 1st
partyıs response to a consumer indicating a DNT preference.

Defining what 1st parties may or may not do to respond to DNT seems
reasonably within the scope of this discussion. Itıs my view that many of
the decisions made by this group, technical or not, will have a policy
impact, and what happens when a consumer turns on DNT is one of the big
ones. 

A functional DNT option would give consumers choice and control over data
collection. Defining a DNT standard could be a pointless exercise if 1st
parties can make it an either/or equation. Accepting tracking as a condition
of accessing the Internet is the current status quo, and the problem from
our point of view that we should be correcting.

I think itıs also important to note that DNT is a far cry from ad-blockers.
Advertising will not disappear as a revenue source for the internet because
some users prohibit tracking to target those ads.

Carmen  


On 10/26/11 9:40 AM, "Mike Zaneis" <mike@iab.net> wrote:

> I agree with Jules, Amy, and David on this point.  Sorry to use the +1 but I
> do believe that the more input we get from participants the closer we will be
> to closing out certain issues.
> 
> Just to push back on whether ISSUE-93 is out of scope or not, it seems strange
> to me that a W3C technical specification would provide "permissions" for basic
> business operations.  A DNT "technical" standard that "allows" millions of
> businesses/publishers to offer their content and services in this way or that
> way seems fundamentally out of scope.
> 
> Mike Zaneis
> SVP & General Counsel
> Interactive Advertising Bureau
> (202) 253-1466
> 
> Follow me on Twitter @mikezaneis
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-tracking-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tracking-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Jules Polonetsky
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:59 PM
> To: 'Amy Colando (LCA)'; 'Karl Dubost'; 'David Wainberg'
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Propose to drop from the strawman: ISSUE-93
> 
> Note that a typical degrading effect might be the very common situation
> where a cookie is used to frequency cap at 1 time a pop-up or full page ad
> takeover.  A site might allow its third party adserver to trigger a full
> page ad or pop up ad but insist that it happen only the first time an
> individual visits the site or no more than once a week.  Yes, the site could
> work around and track in first party context, but they have outsourced all
> their adserving as most sites have.   I can think of other examples where a
> third party cookie may be used for the individuals benefit - and where site
> work arounds are possible, but could easily be ignored by the site,
> especially if a small minority of users are affected.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-tracking-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tracking-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Amy Colando (LCA)
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 11:34 PM
> To: Karl Dubost; David Wainberg
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Propose to drop from the strawman: ISSUE-93
> 
> +1
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-tracking-request@w3.org [mailto:public-tracking-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Karl Dubost
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:14 PM
> To: David Wainberg
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Propose to drop from the strawman: ISSUE-93
> 
> 
> Le 25 oct. 2011 à 17:17, David Wainberg a écrit :
>> ISSUE-93: Should 1st parties be able to degrade a user experience or
> charge money for content based on DNT (It appears in 6.1 of the Compliance
> and Scope doc.)
>> 
>> This is well out of scope of this standard, and should be dropped from the
> strawman document. The DNT standard should be limited to particular cases of
> data collection and use. It's not the role of the standard to require
> businesses to require or suggest broad changes to a company's business
> practices (such as giving away content and services for free) that aren't
> directly related to implementation of the standard and handling of the
> relevant data.
> 
> 
> Seconded.
> That said, it is useful non normative comment for implementers.

-- 
Carmen Balber
Washington Director
Consumer Watchdog
413 E. Capitol St. SE, 1st Floor
Washington, D.C  20003
p:(202) 629-3043
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org

Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 13:50:29 UTC