- From: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:15:08 -0800
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, "Aleecia M. McDonald" <aleecia@aleecia.com>, Matthias Schunter <mts@zurich.ibm.com>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <18736A70-A139-4385-BE7D-88EB690143E0@consumerwatchdog.org>
Thanks, Rigo. I agree shorter is better. I'll work on some cuts. Could you offer a few sentences that covers the protection of democracy aspect? Best regards, John On Feb 11, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote: > 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 ---------- 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 Monday, 13 February 2012 18:15:27 UTC