W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Frequency Capping

From: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:32:00 +0000
To: Peter Eckersley <peter.eckersley@gmail.com>
CC: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>, "Grimmelmann, James" <James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>, Mike Zaneis <mike@iab.net>, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth <Brendan@iab.net>
Message-ID: <CC2452A8.1FDA0%chris.mejia@iab.net>
"…in previous posts I shared some Panopticlick data on why the situation is somewhat better once the unique IDs are gone."

Can you please share this data again, or a link to your post?  I must have missed that, sorry.

And when you write "somewhat better once unique IDs are gone", can you please quantify that statement as it relates to real and documented privacy threats that relate specifically to the longstanding practice of frequency capping?  How many real privacy violations have you documented as a direct result of frequency capping today?  The reason I ask, is that I'd like to understand if we are working on real documented issues or hypothetical "what if's".

Once you have quantified your proposed  privacy "threat" that exists in the market today (actual occurrence), as a direct result of frequency capping (i.e. how many consumers have reported actual privacy breaches as a direct result of f-capping?) , I'd like you to provide a cost-benefit analysis for ALL DNT:1 users for the practice of limiting f-capping via the methods you support (some consumer costs are that DNT:1 users will start receiving repeated delivery of the same ad creative, over and over, and/or will likely stop receiving high-value ad content = bad user experience – please balance that poor user experience with the number of privacy breaches you expect as a direct result of f-capping, based on your research data showing the actual number of documented consumer complaints today).  Please be specific and cite real research data so we can all appreciate your position as it relates to real world problems, in context of the actual number of documented privacy breaches that exist related specifically to the practice of f-capping that you wish to regulate.  Thanks.


From: Peter Eckersley <peter.eckersley@gmail.com<mailto:peter.eckersley@gmail.com>>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:53:01 -0700
To: Chris Mejia - IAB <chris.mejia@iab.net<mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>
Cc: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu<mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu>>, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca<mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca>>, "Grimmelmann, James" <James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu<mailto:James.Grimmelmann@nyls.edu>>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>, Mike Zaneis - IAB <mike@iab.net<mailto:mike@iab.net>>, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth - IAB <brendan@iab.net<mailto:brendan@iab.net>>
Subject: Re: Frequency Capping


On 11 July 2012 18:42, Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net<mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>> wrote:

>From privacy groups' perspective, there cannot be a Do Not Track standard that allows unique IDs for frequency capping of non-consenting users.

Why not?  What's your justification?  Please cite real examples of how f-capping has negatively affected any consumer's privacy.  Do you have research to share?

Our reasons for insisting that unique ID cookies must never be used under a Do Not Track standard have been discussed many times on this list and in F2Fs.  There are many, but the deepest is that unique IDs (whether for f-capping or any other purpose) make it impossible to remotely test compliance with the standard.  And yes, in previous posts I shared some Panopticlick data on why the situation is somewhat better once the unique IDs are gone.

--
Peter
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 14:32:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:52 UTC