Re: Fate-sharing for ad behavioral targeting and other forms of personalization (ISSUE-36)

Agree with Tom's proposed text.

On Jan 31, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Tom Lowenthal wrote:

> ISSUE-36 Action-63
> 
> Proposed text:
> 
> "This standard provides general requirements on data collection, use,
> and disclosure. These requirements are not specific to behavioral
> advertising."
> 
> On 01/26/2012 07:29 PM, Bryan Sullivan wrote:
>> I agree, either a direct statement such as suggested or
>> 
>> "This standard does not single out any particular use of data for special
>> treatment under DNT, other than the cases of specific exemption."
>> 
>> 
>> But I like Shane's wording better.
>> 
>> On 1/26/12 6:59 AM, "Shane Wiley" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Then I would suggest state just that then:
>>> 
>>> "The standard does not single out behavioral advertising for special
>>> treatment."
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:54 PM
>>> To: JC Cannon
>>> Cc: Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>>> Subject: Re: Fate-sharing for ad behavioral targeting and other forms of
>>> personalization (ISSUE-36)
>>> 
>>> This text is not intended to prohibit or allow anything.  It only
>>> clarifies that the standard does not single out behavioral advertising
>>> for any special treatment.
>>> 
>>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 3:44 PM, JC Cannon wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I agree with Shane. Personalization based on demographics or
>>>> organizational membership could also be permitted.
>>>> 
>>>> JC
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Shane Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:27 AM
>>>> To: Jonathan Mayer
>>>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>>>> Subject: RE: Fate-sharing for ad behavioral targeting and other forms
>>>> of personalization (ISSUE-36)
>>>> 
>>>> I disagree with a general prohibition on any personalization based on
>>>> DNT which the current text would suggest.  For example, geo-location or
>>>> context.
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:24 PM
>>>> To: Shane Wiley
>>>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>>>> Subject: Re: Fate-sharing for ad behavioral targeting and other forms
>>>> of personalization (ISSUE-36)
>>>> 
>>>> We haven't defined tracking in the document, and I see no reason to add
>>>> a dependency here.
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 26, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Friendly amendment:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "This standard does not differentiate between personalization for
>>>>> advertisement targeting and other uses of personalization based on
>>>>> tracking."
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:13 PM
>>>>> To: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>>>>> Subject: Fate-sharing for ad behavioral targeting and other forms of
>>>>> personalization (ISSUE-36)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Proposed text:
>>>>> 
>>>>> "This standard does not differentiate between personalization for
>>>>> advertisement targeting and other uses of personalization."
>>>>> 
>>>>> And making this issue CLOSED.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

----------
John M. Simpson
Consumer Advocate
Consumer Watchdog
1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA,90405
Tel: 310-392-7041
Cell: 310-292-1902
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org
john@consumerwatchdog.org