Re: Issue 115, exemptions, best practices: Issue 25 and 34

Alan and Amy,

What would users learn about what granting an exemption means for  
their data under your approach?

Lee

Sent from my iPod

On Feb 13, 2012, at 7:44 AM, "Amy Colando (LCA)"  
<acolando@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Alan, I agree. Some of the text I previously submitted (will have to  
> look up issue number) on user override/consent could be helpful here  
> and would allow for the continued evolution of law/business model/ 
> consumer expectations.
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> From: Alan Chapell
> Sent: 2/13/2012 6:55 AM
> To: Jeffrey Chester; Kathy Joe
> Cc: Jules Polonetsky; public-tracking@w3.org; 'adam.phillips@realresearch.co.uk 
> '
> Subject: Re: Issue 115, exemptions, best practices: Issue 25 and 34
>
> Jeff -
>
> I'm concerned that you're attempting to set a granular, world-wide  
> standard for disclosures – which may conflict with local law, and cr 
> eate another layer of legal and technical hurdles for small to mid-s 
> ized publishers --- most of whom are already in compliance with loca 
> l consumer protection law. And it would seem to me that a world-wide 
>  analysis of how these new rules work across jurisdictions would be  
> a pretty significant undertaking on our end.
>
> Why not simply state that sites seeking exemptions should  
> communicate those requests clearly and in line with consumer  
> protection law(s) in the jurisdiction(s) in which they operate?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan Chapell
> Chapell & Associates
> 917 318 8440
>
>
> From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:12:52 -0500
> To: Kathy Joe <K.Joe@esomar.org>
> Cc: Jules Polonetsky <julespol@futureofprivacy.org>, Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com 
> >, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "'adam.phillips@realresearch.co.uk 
> '" <adam.phillips@realresearch.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Issue 115, exemptions, best practices: Issue 25 and 34
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:13:46 +0000
>
> For any site seeking an exemption, it should be required to explain  
> clearly upfront how the data is to be collected and used.  This  
> isn't the privacy policy, which few people read and generally fails  
> to explain what goes on.  When a user has DNT:1 on, the bar for the  
> exemption process should be reasonably higher in terms of candid  
> disclosure.  If the research community can live with such candor,  
> given what ever rules are applied by W3C, that's fine.
>
> Happy to discuss this issue further.  I understand the need to use  
> panels, etc., but we should establish a clear digital bright line  
> for the exemption process.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Hi Jeffrey,
>>
>> The conditions on best practice for sites to manage exemptions  
>> include: A site should not use a special landing page that has been  
>> designedprincipally to convert a user to agree to permit an  
>> exemption. …A site should not offer  rewards and incentives for a  
>> user to approve of an exemption.
>>
>> We appreciate what you are aiming to do but a blanket ban would  
>> harm research and make it impossible to ask people to take part in  
>> surveys as research panels offer respondents small incentives to  
>> participate in research.
>>
>> In our text for Issue 25 and 34 (see below), we outline how site  
>> users might be recruited to a research panel and agree to  
>> participate in research that could  gather site specific or cross  
>> site data. The research site explains what information would be  
>> collected, the purpose of the research and provides a mechanism for  
>> the user to give their consent. If panel members elect to be  
>> tracked, it is with their consent as part of their agreement with  
>> the research organisation. They can opt-out at any time.
>>
>> If a user agrees to the terms of participation having received  
>> transparent information in the site’s privacy policy they would be 
>>  compensated for their time and effort with small incentives such  
>> as a chance to participate in a prize draw.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Kathy Joe
>>
>> Issue 25: Possible exemption forresearch purposes covered by  
>> conditions for outsourcing and issue 34: Exemption for aggregated  
>> data
>> An exemption for research purposes is not required as this is  
>> covered under conditions for outsourcing 3.6.1.2.1 where user’s co 
>> nsent is required for cross-site tracking or issue 34, exemption f 
>> or aggregated data.
>>
>> Description: The first party site has an agreement with a research  
>> company to serve an invitation to a user as a result of something  
>> they have done on the site, eg visited a travel section. The user  
>> has a first party relationship with the site.
>>
>> Suggestion: Site users’ individualised data can be collected with  
>> permission, the use of the data cannot be applied in an interactiv 
>> e way and no products or services are offered to respondents on th 
>> e basis of their individual responses. The researcher and sponsor  
>> use theinformation gathered strictly for research purposes. Resear 
>> chers aggregate research data and when reported, the data is de-id 
>> entified and cannot be linked to a specific user, computer or devi 
>> ce. Any disclosures of identifiable research data must be used str 
>> ictly for research purposes and with respondent consent.
>>
>> If the respondent consents to be tracked, the data that is shared  
>> with the client is anonymised and aggregated in such a way that no  
>> discernable patterns can be attributed to a single individual.
>>
>> Online surveys are usually interactive with the site user  
>> indicating their consent (YES) and not filling them (or pressing  
>> the "no" button) is equivalent to NO (meaningful interaction). Ie  
>> explicit yes or no.
>>
>> Example and use cases: A site user is browsing a site. If they  
>> fulfil certain criteria, they may be served a pop up invitation  
>> which they may choose to click through to accept in which case the  
>> research company would then become the first party. The research  
>> company may ask to be granted an exception, site-specific or cross- 
>> site. The data collected would be aggregated in the results as the  
>> research company is not interested in identifying that particular  
>> person.
>>
>> Opt back in for panel members who have DNT - see 4.3.1: how should  
>> a tracking reference interact with user over-rides of the tracking  
>> compliance, Issue 27: How should the “opt-back in” mechanism be  
>> designed?
>> Description: Research panel member eg Suppress DNT because there is  
>> a contractual agreement with the user (ie users have a pre-existing  
>> agreement to be tracked)
>> Panel Members are individual users that have expressed the desire  
>> to be part of a research study and/or group as part of a behavioral  
>> tracking research program which would need to over-ride the DNT  
>> standard. We introduce this to distinguish it from a site-specific  
>> exemption which may represent a desire/preference whereas a panel  
>> member relationship represents a contractual obligation with the  
>> research organization that may cover different domains.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kathy Joe
>> Professional Standards & Public Affairs Director
>>
>> <image002.jpg>
>>
>>
>> Eurocenter 2, 11th floor
>> Barbara Strozzilaan 384
>> 1083 HN Amsterdam
>> The Netherlands
>> Tel: +31 20 664 2141
>> Fax: +31 20 664 2922
>> www.esomar.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org]
>> Sent: 09 February 2012 01:41
>> To: Jules Polonetsky
>> Cc: 'Alan Chapell'; public-tracking@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Issue 115, exemptions, best practices
>>
>> It's a panel, which is distinct from user impact/expectations.   
>> That is covered by research issue.
>>
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Jules Polonetsky wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here is a current example of users being paid for tracking
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/google-screenwise-project_n_1263128.html?ref=tw
>>
>> From: AlanChapell [mailto:achapell@chapellassociates.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:59 PM
>> To: Jeffrey Chester
>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
>> Subject: Re: Issue 115, exemptions, best practices
>>
>> Jeff -
>>
>> If we're starting with the premise that any attempt to get a User  
>> to agree to an exemption is undermining User intent, we're going to  
>> have trouble finding common ground. Are there ANY mechanisms for  
>> providing a reward for the User's agreement to an exemption that  
>> are acceptable to you? What about providing additional free content  
>> inexchange for an exemption? Is that ok?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alan Chapell
>> Chapell & Associates
>> 917 318 8440
>>
>>
>> From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
>> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:50:09 -0500
>> To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
>> Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org 
>> >
>> Subject: Re: Issue 115, exemptions, best practices
>>
>> Alan:  As you know, online marketing practices are designed to  
>> process users to agree to opt-in and data practices.  What I wrote  
>> below are just a few of the practices used by the leading co's and  
>> many others.  If a users decision on DNT is not to be undermined,  
>> we must ensure that practices are incorporated the permit fair user  
>> choice.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeffrey Chester
>> Center for Digital Democracy
>> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
>> Washington, DC 20009
>> www.democraticmedia.org
>> www.digitalads.org
>> 202-986-2220
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2012, at 3:23 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeff – In looking at what you've provided here, I'm a bit concerne 
>> d that you are dictating the terms that a website has with its vis 
>> itors. Can you share the rationale for each of these – and specifi 
>> cally, what you are trying to guard against?
>>
>> Alternatively, I'm happy to have a one-off discussion on this topic  
>> on Friday early AM with Ninja and Jim.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Alan Chapell
>> Chapell & Associates
>> 917 318 8440
>>
>>
>> From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
>> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:05:40 -0500
>> To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org 
>> >
>> Subject: Issue 115, exemptions, best practices
>> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> Resent-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:08:56 +0000
>>
>>  https://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/115
>>
>> [I await input from Ninja, Alan and Jim]
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Practices for sites to manage exemptions should include:
>>
>> A site must provide accurate information to users on the actual  
>> data collection and use practices of the site.  This should include  
>> all information used for tracking, targeting, sales of profiles.
>> A site should not suggest that the ability to access information is  
>> dependent on blanket acceptance of a site's data practices.
>> A site should not use "immersive" multimedia applications designed  
>> to foster opt-in as a way to encourage a user agreeing to an  
>> exemption.
>> A site should not use a special landing page that has been designed  
>> principally to convert a user to agree to permit an exemption.
>> A site should not use social media marketing to urge a user to ask  
>> their "friends" to approve exemptions.
>> A site should not offer rewards and incentives for a user to  
>> approve of an exemption.
>>
>>
>