- From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
- Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:26:58 -0500
- To: Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
I want to clarify that I do not believe the privacy case needs to be made at all. That issue has been decided, and is reason why we are creating the DNT signal. But I am happy to provide you with the tyle of information we regularly give to the EU, Congress and the FTC. Jeff Chester Center for Digital Democracy Washington DC www.democraticmedia.org Jeff@democraticmedia.org On Feb 4, 2012, at 11:58 PM, Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm glad that we will try to equitably advance arguments from both > end-goals (privacy and market enablement). That was my only concern. > > I think the political need is being driven by better user awareness of Web > usage side-effects, not just by cross-site business models. I also think > that users are becoming more aware that the free nature of the Web is an > illusion, and that as they better understand the barter they engage in > with every click, they will come to appreciate and take advantage of the > bargaining position they are in as controllers of their personal data. > > On 2/2/12 6:40 AM, "Jeffrey Chester" <jeff@democraticmedia.org> wrote: > >> Bryan: I will be happy to help elucidate the user privacy case. As you >> know, both the FTC and EU expect the DNT standard to seriously address >> the expansive data collection practices that have been routinized. If >> there wasn't such a compelling privacy concern, we all wouldn't be doing >> this. Indeed, I am happy to meet you half way on the discussion. But >> its the current business model that has created the political need for an >> effective DNT, including on the mobile/location environment. >> >> >>> >>> To balance the approach, in my view any argument against exceptions must >>> satisfy an equally rigorous test: >>> >>> 1) Specifically defined. Data that is considered privacy sensitive must >>> be >>> clearly delineated, re collection, retention, and use. Any such data >>> that >>> is subsequently identified by business stakeholders as important to >>> Business As Usual (BAU) apart from the narrow purpose of cross-site >>> tracking, needs a privacy sensitivity explanation that is >>> extraordinarily >>> explicit. >>> >>> 2) No blanket restrictions. We should grant or deny an exception on the >>> merits of how it balances privacy and commerce, not solely upon a >>> specific >>> privacy concern. >>>
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 15:27:34 UTC