Re: Frequency Capping

I also question whether a standards WG is the best place to be doing
original research. I joined this working group under the impression that we
were going to try to define some set of practices, be it online behavioral
advertising or something broader, that we agreed there was reason to
provide users with a mechanism to opt out of these practices, and
standardize that mechanism for opting out of such mechanisms.

It feels like we are now diverging substantially from that original goal
and trying to get into some sort of "design by committee of new
technologies". Design by committee can work when we're trying to do
something reasonably focused, with clear objective ways to compare two
proposals (e.g. should it be a well known URI or everything bundled up in
the DNT: header itself), but I don't think it's well suited to a "let's go
off and spend a year coming up with (potentially) new mechanisms for
frequency capping, deploy and evaluate." If people want to redesign
frequency capping, I think that's a great exercise, but this working group
is not the proper context for such an exercise. This working group should
focus on defining a set of practices we wish to let users opt out of, and
standardizing a uniform mechanism to allow users to express that choice /
control. That should be achievable.

my $0.02
-ian

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Jonathan,****
>
> ** **
>
> I continue to respectively disagree and believe you’ve heard from enough
> of the working group that many feel this is delaying the real progress of
> Do Not Track (versus the very few who feel there is any value here).
> Attempting to develop PET solutions via email in a few days isn’t a
> productive path forward but the ultimate goal and sentiment are – hopefully
> you’ll reconsider the offer to more appropriately address these in a
> separately forum.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> - Shane****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 13, 2012 1:47 PM
> *To:* Shane Wiley
> *Cc:* Tamir Israel; Mike Zaneis; JC Cannon; Roy T. Fielding; Peter
> Eckersley; W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: Frequency Capping****
>
> ** **
>
> Shane,****
>
> ** **
>
> We've been over this many times before; I'm not going to rehash the myriad
> counterarguments.  If you don't want to participate in constructive
> discussion of privacy-preserving advertising, so be it.  But you're doing
> yourself, Yahoo!, and Do Not Track no favors by repeatedly calling for
> something that you know is entirely unacceptable to many members of the
> group.****
>
> ** **
>
> Jonathan****
>
> ** **
>
> On Friday, July 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:****
>
> Tamir,****
>
>  ****
>
> Many of us in industry are more than willing to look a privacy enhancing
> technologies and process approaches to diminish the perceived risks
> associated with Permitted Use practices.  The issue is speed to resolution
> significantly delaying completion of the DNT standard.  I’ve often
> advocated a dual-pronged approach to this issue:  move the current DNT
> specification to resolution with Permitted Uses and develop a secondary
> track to focus purely on Permitted Uses, Unlinkability, and privacy
> enhancing technologies to reduce dependency on unique IDs at scale. ****
>
>  ****
>
> I would recommend we immediately branch this effort to another email list
> and begin work in parallel (it’s already started here).  We can bring in
> more technical experts, begin testing hypothesis and limited research in
> this area, build test platforms, and move forward with production testing
> to confirm concepts hold up under mass scale.  Attempting to wait out this
> entire process in-line with the current DNT standard conversation will push
> out completion many months (if not years as I don’t believe this to be a
> one-time conversation and rather an on-going evolution of privacy
> preserving technical approaches).****
>
>  ****
>
> - Shane****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca <tisrael@cippic.ca>]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 13, 2012 11:07 AM
> *To:* Mike Zaneis
> *Cc:* JC Cannon; Shane Wiley; Roy T. Fielding; Peter Eckersley; W3C DNT
> Working Group Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: Frequency Capping****
>
>  ****
>
> Mike,
>
> If there is a solution to F-capping that does not require unique
> identification of users than this will dramatically cut down the amount of
> 'tracking' that can occur under DNT-1 state. As opposed to some other
> possible permitted uses, an F-capping exception will permit unique
> identification of every single individual regardless of DNT state.
>
> Look, there's really only 1 question here: is industry willing to at least
> *explore* alternative technical solutions that allow f-capping w/out
> unique identification of users?
>
> If the answer is no, that is very disappointing. If the answer is yes,
> than I refer you back to:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jul/0075.html
>
> Best,
> Tamir
>
> On 7/13/2012 1:32 PM, Mike Zaneis wrote: ****
>
> Tamir,****
>
>  ****
>
> At the very first meeting last September this group addressed the fact
> that under any standard coming out of the W3C that there would still be
> some "tracking" even with DNT turned on. Newer participants will either
> have to get comfortable with that fact or the group will have to go back to
> the beginning.
>
> Mike Zaneis ****
>
> SVP & General Counsel, IAB****
>
> (202) 253-1466****
>
>
> On Jul 13, 2012, at 12:33 PM, "Tamir Israel" <tisrael@cippic.ca> wrote:***
> *
>
> On 7/13/2012 12:20 PM, JC Cannon wrote: ****
>
> 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.****
>
>
> That too : )
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> 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 -- I personally don't think it should be a permitted use, primarily
> because it allows for the possibility of 'tracking' in scenarios where a
> user has expressed their desire not to be tracked. Some others have
> expressed strongly their impression that some form of F-capping is
> necessary even in a DNT-1 state. The hope is that there is a technical
> solution to resolve this impasse.
>
> Best,
> Tamir
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> JC****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Tamir Israel [mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca <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 <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?****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>