Re: Frequency Capping

Hi Chris,

On 7/12/2012 2:35 PM, Chris Mejia wrote:
> CM:  I take some exception to your rather loose definition (through 
> inference) of the word "harm".  When I look up the word harm in the 
> Merriam-Webster dictionary (provided free of charge online now, and 
> advertising supported: 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harm), I found the following 
> definition consistent with a common understanding of the term:
>
>
>     Definition of /HARM/
>
> 1
> *:* physical or mental damage *:* injury 
> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/injury>
> 2
> *:* mischief <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mischief>, 
> hurt <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hurt>

The definition of 'privacy harm' is 'harm to the right to privacy'. By 
your definition, yes, absolutely, we probably do not need any DNT 
mechanism at all. But if we accept that some users do not want to be 
tracked, we should at least aspire to help them express their preference 
not to be tracked (whether to facilitate targeted advertising, 
non-targeted advertising, or whatever).

More later.

Best,
Tamir