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

Re: Frequency Capping

From: Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:01:21 -0400
Message-ID: <50004651.1050200@cippic.ca>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Peter Eckersley <peter.eckersley@gmail.com>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org>

Your brick and mortar example to me highlights very precisely the 
problem here. The fact that Walmart chooses to carry Raisin Bran in 
addition to Lucky Charms (no accounting for taste : P) does not initiate 
any type of interaction between me and Raisin Bran. Just between me and 
Walmart and, if I'm hungry as I walk past the cereal section, me and 
Lucky Charms.

My expression of 'do not track me' should be able to encompass this type 
of model.

So, I should be able to say: I don't want to be tracked by anyone, but 
I'll grant an exception to yahoo and adobe (because I trust them), but 
not to 'financial-credit-profile-builder' (because I /don't/ trust 
them). Making a list of third parties easily discoverable won't quite 
get us there because it targets the first party, whereas the potential 
bad behaviour and incentives need to be applied to the /third /parties. 
Therefore: a.) there is no way for me to communicate to the first party 
that my problem isn't with 98% of the third parties they're using to 
monetize, but only with x and y; and b.) there will not be any 
competitive pressures on particular servers to behave well (maintain 
anonymous cookie ID, for example).


On 7/12/2012 4:19 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> Tamir,
> You've interacted with those 3rd parties as a part of your interaction with the 1st party -- as that 1st party has partnered with those 3rd parties to provide its services to you (monetization, analytics, content, widgets, etc.).  If a 1st party is transparent about those 3rd parties it works with (and/or highly discoverable through already existing web browser tools), is it fair to say you still have a choice at that point to decide to continue to interact with that 1st party?  If you disagree with a 3rd party's ability to maintain an anonymous cookie ID in relationship to the services its providing to the 1st party, you do not need to interact with that 1st party.  The choice is yours.
> If there were true "harms" involved, then you may look at this through a slight different lens, but that has yet to be established.
> To use a brick-n-mortar example, you do not have a right to require Wal-Mart carry a specific brand of cereal you may really like (your desire vs. their business obligation).  If you're unhappy with Wal-Mart due to this choice, you can decide to not shop at Wal-Mart.
> - Shane
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:56 PM
> To: Roy T. Fielding
> Cc: Peter Eckersley; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Frequency Capping
> On 7/12/2012 3:12 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> Yes, and it has been rejected many times because the ID cookies are
>> used by other features that won't be turned off by DNT.
> Not so. I have never interacted and have no relationship with third
> party server X. Why does it need to be able to identify me in any way?
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 16:02:16 UTC

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