Re: Request for comments on priorities for DNT

Dear Peter,

Thank you for giving group members the opportunity to provide feedback on what the priorities should be to move our work forward on the DNT specification.  I have two comments:
1.  Issues are in one of five buckets:  Raised, Open, Pending Review, Postponed, and Closed.  We should consider going through Raised and Postponed issues buckets to determine which issues need to be addressed by the group to move the work forward.  Issues to be addressed should then be opened and move through the review process including drafting text.  Issues not to be addressed – close.  Issue 5 is a good example.  This issue has been Raised, there have been a number of emails on the list regarding this issue including proposed language, but the issue has yet moved to Open status.
2.  Agree we are not building a standard that will meet all global requirements.  This is the purpose of the Global Considerations task force – to outline additional requirements companies operating in specific regions (EU, US, etc) need to implement in addition to what is outlined in the TPE and TCS docs to meet regional regulatory requirements.

Kind regards,
Joanne Furtsch
Director of Product Policy
TRUSTe

From: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>>
Reply-To: "rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>" <rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>>
Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:58 AM
To: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net<mailto:peter@peterswire.net>>
Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>" <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Request for comments on priorities for DNT
Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:58 AM

Dear Peter,

1. No linkable data collection when DNT=1. Matching (unique) identifiers are essential when it comes to user profiling, (micro)segmentation and (micro)optimization, (re)targeting, mapping user IDs between platforms, (real-time) buying and selling of data, end-user privacy controls, frequency capping of ads, web analytics, on-line advertising attribution and verification, web metrics, focus-group calibration etc. The digital marketing-list goes on and on, and innovation will add new business models. Whether matching (distinct) unique identifiers are used for each business purpose, or whether the future will standardize towards a single ID, the point is that when DNT=1, it means do not collect, by default.

2. Add proportionality to the global requirements (No Secondary Use, Data Minimization and Transparency,Reasonable Security,No Personalization) for permitted uses. It is a cornerstone principle in modern privacy thinking. When this group is truly looking for consensus on data processing practices, the proportionality of the determined business purposed and the means used to accomplish these must be taken into account.

3. Interoperability and meaningfulness. Being conformant to the W3C standards still leaves the gap to become legally compliant. Revisiting the party definitions, and align them with the EU concept of data controller/processor is going to make it easier to close that gap.

Regards,
Rob

On 28-11-2012 22:42, Peter Swire wrote:
To Tracking Protection Working Group:

First, let me once again echo the thanks that many of you have given to Aleecia for her service with this group.  I have found Aleecia unfailingly gracious and fair in her dealings with me, and I am glad she is planning to continue to share her insights with the group as we move forward.

As mentioned on the weekly call today, to assist me in getting up to speed, the Working Group chairs solicit input from participants, with comments due by noon Eastern time on Wednesday, December 5.  The intent would be to discuss these comments on the December 12 call.

We ask that you emphasize no more than 3 points and do your submission in no more than 300 words.  (To help you be brief, we will prioritize in our reading the comments that comply with the limits.)

As you make these points, we are interested in what you think are the priority points for the co-chairs to consider, including: areas of agreement, what principles should guide our work, and what will best bring the new co-chair up to speed.

(If this request for comments feels vague or not precise enough, my apologies.  It perhaps is a sign of my lack of experience with defining problems within the W3C procedures.  The basic idea, however, should be clear -- what are the priority things for the new co-chair to know.)

Please post your comments to this email list.

In looking forward to working with you all,

Peter



Professor Peter P. Swire
C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
    Ohio State University
240.994.4142
www.peterswire.net<http://www.peterswire.net>