- From: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:36:37 -0500
- To: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
- CC: Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Jeff, I don't think there's any disagreement that there are privacy issues -- that's why we're here, after all -- but I think we should all be more specific about what the issues are. There actually seems to be a pretty broad range of views of what exactly is the "issue that has been decided." What exactly are the data collection practices that need to be addressed? I think it would be extremely helpful to this process to get very specific about what data we're talking about. -David On 2/5/12 10:26 AM, Jeffrey Chester wrote: > 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 20:37:07 UTC