- From: Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:15:25 -0800
- To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
- CC: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4F2C243D.9070800@mozilla.com>
Shane, where do you think the sentence should go in the pre-amble, can you put it in context? On 02/01/2012 03:38 PM, Shane Wiley wrote: > I believe the first sentence is already covered elsewhere in the documents. Would it be okay to simply add this statement to existing preambles? > > "These requirements are not specific to behavioral advertising." > > This statement doesn't do a very good job of truly expressing the balance of focus though (primarily focused on OBA/profiling across sites, but also includes other cross site data collection as well). Perhaps not a material issue... > > - Shane > > From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:51 PM > To: Tom Lowenthal > Cc: Bryan Sullivan; Shane Wiley; Jonathan Mayer; JC Cannon; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org) > Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto: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<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org> > john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org> > >
Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 18:16:36 UTC