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: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:36:37 -0500
Message-ID: <4F3039D5.4010901@appnexus.com>
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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:38:33 UTC