RE: Frequency Capping

It is not practical to expect many consumers to go through and manage a list of third-party sites. Even the small number of educated users won't understand all the third parties on a site. Consumers have to feel that when they visit a third-party site that their privacy will be protected and if not, that they have some recourse to address any harm.

Moreover, I feel we should be addressing whether or not frequency capping is a permitted use and not spending time trying to design it in this working group.

JC

From: Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 9:01 AM
To: Shane Wiley
Cc: Roy T. Fielding; Peter Eckersley; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List
Subject: Re: Frequency Capping

Shane,

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).

Best,
Tamir

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?