- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:57:31 +0100
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
- Cc: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
John, thanks for the text. Two remarks: 1/ I think it is too long 2/ While the consumer-protection aspect is clearly stated, the protection of democracy aspect is not clear and is hidden in the "human rights" statement. While I understand that you only talk from a consumer standpoint, consumption is not the only value we should care about. Best, Rigo On Thursday 02 February 2012 13:15:05 John Simpson wrote: > Colleagues: > > Following completes Action-101, revise draft text for the the Compliance and > Scope Specification, Issue-6, based on feedback from the mail list. > > John > --------------------------- > > > Issue Number: Issue-6 > > Issue Name: > What are underlying concerns? Why are we doing this? What are people afraid > of? > > Issue URL: > http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/6 > > Section number in the FPWD: 2.1 Goals > > Contributors to this text: > John M. Simpson > Kevin Trilli > > Description: > Explaining stakeholders' concerns and the reasons to offer Do Not Track help > put the Tracking Compliance and Scope standard in context so its importance > will be understood. > > Specification: > The user experience online involves the exchange of data across servers. At > the most basic level, online communication requires the exchange of IP > addresses between two parties. Completion of e-commerce transactions > normally involves the sending of credit card numbers and user contact > information. However, the user experience also often involves unintentional > disclosure of data and the commercial compilation of many different kinds > of user data by different entities. Much web content is supported by > advertising and much of this advertising is linked to either the content of > the page visited or to a profile about the particular user or computer. > Complex business models have arisen around these online data flows. > > Exactly how this information is gathered and used is not clear to most > users. Moreover, users have repeatedly expressed concerns about the use of > their data, as this data can be considered personal or even sensitive. > For example, a Consumers Union Poll > (http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_telecom_and_utilities/006189.html ) > found that 72 percent or respondents are concerned that their online > behaviors were being tracked and profiled by companies. A poll conducted > for Consumer Watchdog by Grove Insight found 80 percent support for a "Do > Not Track" feature > (http://insidegoogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/wfreInternet.release1.p > df). TRUSTe featured two research studies attempting to quantify consumer > concerns around tracking in mobile (April 2011) > (http://www.truste.com/about_TRUSTe/press-room/news_truste_mobile_privacy_s > urvey_results_2011) and more generally around OBA (July 2011) > http://www.truste.com/ad-privacy/TRUSTe-2011-Consumer-Behavioral-Advertisin > g-Survey-Results.pdf) The Special European Barometer 359 ( > http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_359_en.pdf) found that > 54 percent of respondents were uncomfortable with the fact that websites > "use information about your online activity to tailor advertisements or > content to your hobbies and interests." > > In non-US jurisdictions, consumers have a different, and higher, expectation > around privacy, which stems closer to a fundamental "right" granted to them > as part of their citizenship of a particular country. The concept of > non-permissive collection of their browsing behavior and personal > information is antithetical to their fundamental values and expectations of > how they should be treated online. > > In response to such concerns in 2007 several public interest groups > including the World Privacy Forum, CDT and EFF, asked the U.S. Federal > Trade Commission to create a Do Not Track list for online advertising. The > idea was compared to the popular "Do Not Call" list administered by the > Commission. Other groups around the world have followed suit like eDAA and > Canada, and are in some cases pushing for an express consent model (opt-in) > vs. opt-out model. > > It became clear that a Do Not Track list was impractical, but support for > the concept of empowering users to have greater control over the > information that is gathered about them has continued. Providing more > transparency about data flows and empowering users to control their data, > will bolster users' confidence in the Internet. Such an outcome is a win, > win for business and consumers alike. > > The accompanying Tracking Preference Expression recommendation explains how > a user, through a user agent, can clearly express a desire not to be > tracked. This Tracking Compliance and Scope recommendation sets the > standard for the obligations of a website that receives such a DNT message. > > Taken together these two standards should have three substantial outcomes: > Empower users to manage their preference around the collection and > correlation of data about Internet activities that occur on different sites > and spell out the obligations of sites in honoring those preferences when > DNT is enabled. Provide an exceedingly straightforward way for users to > gain transparency and control over data usage and the personalization of > content and advertising on the web. Enable a vibrant Internet to continue > to flourish economically by supporting innovative business models while > protecting users' privacy. Examples and use cases: > 1. Several of the stated research studies have shown that when consumers are > asked about their preferences around tracking, usually a large majority > state they do not wish to be tracked under any circumstances, even when > told of how the tracking is to be used (e.g., to provide relevant > advertising). > > 2. However, research of this type doesn't often map to reality when it comes > to actual behavior of consumers using technology to control this > preference. Examples include: a. Users that block 3rd party cookies by > default, or that clear their cookies after each setting. b. Users of third > party privacy add-ons to help manage their privacy. c. Users that have seen > the AdChoices icon, clicked on it and opt-ed out of tracking in the current > DAA regime. d Recent DNT data from Mozilla shows a very small minority of > uptake and usage. > > In each of these cases, a very small minority have chosen to use these > technologies. But, it can be argued that for the average user, all of > these methods are just complex to use and as such a simpler framework is > needed. Hence, why consumer advocacy and governments intervene. > > 3. Users are often offered a free ad-supported application or service (vs. a > paid-for equivalent) and still continue to select free apps when given the > choice. [The underlying assumption is that they associate "seeing apps" > with "tracking".] > > 4. In the EU, the issue of choice takes a higher level position of human > right based upon Article 8 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the > European Union and Article 8 of The European Convention on Human Rights, > the former saying,"Such data must be processed fairly for specified > purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some > other legitimate basis laid down by law." In this case, it is argued that > all citizens should offer express consent prior to allowing any tracking > that is not absolutely critical to delivering the fundamental function of > the visited website. > > 5. Another level to this argument argument is that everyone is at least due > transparency and the *option* to express a preference with the belief that > that preference will mean something (accountability). This is a > fundamental right in the value exchange of personal information online, > especially when data is already being collected without that person's > knowledge or explicit permission. Whether it is opt-in or opt-out can vary > by location of course. If such system was prevalent then perhaps more > people would change their minds on willingness to be tracked. > > ---------- > 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 > john@consumerwatchdog.org
Received on Saturday, 11 February 2012 20:57:59 UTC