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

Re: Frequency Capping

From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:52:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4FFF2AF3.1060508@cippic.ca>
To: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
CC: Peter Eckersley <peter.eckersley@gmail.com>, Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>, "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>
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.

Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 19:53:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:53 UTC