W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

RE: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49)

From: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:08:35 -0800
To: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>
CC: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63294A1959410048A33AEE161379C8023D0C8AC585@SP2-EX07VS02.ds.corp.yahoo.com>
Jeff,

I believe everyone is aware of the submissions by consumer advocate groups to the regulatory bodies in the US and EU.  The question here is for each of the operational purpose exceptions, what are the counter arguments for allowing the already stated exceptions?  Especially since none of these allow the profiling (tracking) of a user's activities into a profile for use to alter the user's experience.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org] 
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:27 AM
To: Bryan Sullivan
Cc: Jonathan Mayer; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49)

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 Monday, 6 February 2012 15:10:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:44 UTC