Re: Frequency Capping

Hi Chris --

On 7/12/2012 10:49 AM, Chris Mejia wrote:
> Peter,
>
> First, I'd appreciate it if you didn't take my comments out of the 
> full context in which they were written— in other words, when quoting 
> me in this forum, please leave the rest of my comment and the thread 
> in tact so others can read my comments under the full context in which 
> they were written.  I have afforded the same courtesy to you.
>
> Industry has been at this table, at tremendous cost, negotiating in 
> good faith.  The mere fact that we are having this very debate proves 
> my/our commitment to this serious matter.  That we don't agree on 
> certain points should not be conflated with a lack of willingness to 
> agree to compromise on other points, should such compromise be 
> warranted and in the best interest in Internet users.
>
> Which advertising industry engineers do you know who agree with your 
> assertions about f-capping?  I'd be interested in speaking with them 
> directly about the pros and cons of your argument.  That may be a 
> useful debate.
I think what Peter is referring to is that some users might view the 
very fact that they are being tracked in order to facilitate the 
advertising activities of many random third parties they have never 
interacted with to be a 'privacy harm'. As I noted previously, we can 
start debating the relative costs/benefits of an F-cap approach that is 
more privacy protective, if only someone from industry were willing to 
provide a sense of how privacy-friendly F-capping can be done.

So far, I have not seen this, nor have I seen any direct substantive 
responses to why the alternative F-capping proposals suggested by some 
are not workable. A good faith attempt to resolve a problem would entail 
these very engineers that you are referring to  engaging, in good faith, 
in attempts to solve what is, at first instance, a technical problem.
>
> Finally, please pardon my ignorance (as I don't know you); what 
> organization and constituency do you represent?  You haven't provided 
> a signature line indicating your affiliation and you are writing to 
> this forum from a gmail address, so I was not able to ascertain your 
> affiliation, if any, from this information.  In the interest of full 
> disclosure, I represent the membership of the Interactive Advertising 
> Association (IAB – www.iab.net) where I work in the Advertising 
> Technology Group with industry engineers and operations professionals 
> on technical specifications, technical protocols and technical guidance.
With respect, Chris, I don't think this is productive. If it really is 
helpful to start throwing around credentials, I will say that CIPPIC 
(the public interest NGO I represent) is supportive on this point of the 
Standford (Jonathan)/EFF (Peter)/  Mozilla (Tom) compromise proposal 
which was presented to the group here a few weeks back and which did not 
include any explicit exception for tracking users for the purpose of F-caps.

Best,
Tamir

>
> Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | 
> Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB
>
>
> From: Peter Eckersley <peter.eckersley@gmail.com 
> <mailto:peter.eckersley@gmail.com>>
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:57:18 -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:
>
>
>     I work with and represent those key advertising industry engineers
>     you're calling out— the overwhelming response to the proposed
>     "work arounds" to date has been "no, we can't do that" (sorry).
>     Again, performance and scale issues abound, not to mention
>     needless conflicts with the fundamentals of the advertising
>     business.  Respectfully, the job of any working group that wants
>     to regulate another group is to provide real justification for its
>     need to regulate, THEN solve for real-world problems. Bring real
>     problems; justify them; cite examples; show research/data; support
>     your case.  THEN we can start talking and brainstorming solutions.
>
> What you are claiming here, I believe, is that (some? all?) 
> advertising industry engineers do not wish to compromise with privacy 
> and consumer groups on a meaningful Do Not Track standard.
>
> We have gone to tremendous lengths, and in good faith, to compromise 
> on our end.  It's disappointing not to see that from the other side.
>
> -- 
> Peter