Re: ACTION-255: Work on financial reporting text as alternative to legal requirements

Mike, please read my earlier email in this thread with regards to conspiracy theory-- I'm afraid that's what your argument below sounds like.  Industry is here to work on real problems.  Respectfully, the idea that government might access this data for oppressive purposes is outside of the scope of what industry is willing to work on (because we don't have any evidence of this practice).  We are here to work on real world problems, if they exist.  We already spend a tremendous amount of time and money to ensure that such problems don't exist, but if you have documented proof that they do exist, let's discuss that.  Such a discussion would be productive, and may actually lead to some positive changes, if they are warranted.


Chris Mejia, IAB & DAA

On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:56 AM, "\mike O'Neill" <> wrote:

> Alan,
> I don't know if this amounts to a smoking gun.
> If everybody's online behaviour can be recorded and stored without consent,
> without knowledge in most cases, then the data will be very valuable to
> oppressive governments & criminals  and they will find ways to access it.
> Criminals could get to it though corrupt insiders and potentially oppressive
> government through law, 
> For example the Draft Communications Data bill in the UK would allow the
> security services to demand access to behavioural data from anyone who
> gathered it, not just the ISPs. 
> If this could happen in the UK it is not hard to imagine how it could in
> less democratic countries.
> Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Chapell []
> Sent: 02 October 2012 01:50
> To: Rigo Wenning
> Cc: Mike Zaneis; David Wainberg; Nicholas Doty;;
> Dobbs, Brooks
> Subject: Re: ACTION-255: Work on financial reporting text as alternative to
> legal requirements
> The only thing you and I agree upon here is that you can't provide the
> smoking gun. (:
> More belowŠ
> On 10/1/12 7:01 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <> wrote:
>> Alan,
>> On Monday 01 October 2012 16:51:45 Alan Chapell wrote:
>>> I appreciate your taking the time - and the willingness to engage in 
>>> dialog. However, you really did not directly answer my questions. You 
>>> are providing high level examples of privacy issues - most of which 
>>> will not be addressed by DNT unless we radically change our approach.
>> If DNT would not address some of those issues, you wouldn't see me 
>> engaged. :)
>> But this IMHO. I also know that I can't provide the smoking gun. I 
>> guess, Ninja and Rob could. W3C as a community is a pretty good 
>> indication whether something is going on. People are afraid. This can 
>> kill the entire market. That's why we are discussing here.
>> more inline
>>> On 10/1/12 4:27 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <> wrote:
>>>> blocking tools. I can show you how easy it is. If this is still an 
>>>> issue in 5 years, this may even be more damaging to the industry 
>>>> than DNT ever could be.
>>> How is DNT going to stop this practice? If I'm buying my tickets via 
>>>, Delta is a 1st party and would not be subject to a DNT 
>>> signal for these purposes.
>> Oh, Airline XYZ can only do so because they have bought the profile 
>> that tells them I can afford the higher price... - just as an example - 
>> That we do not address first parties is irrelevant for the EU and a 
>> sign of careful nudging of the US community.
> In my experience, it would be unlikely (at best) that airline would
> operate in the way that you're suggesting. We need to distinguish what is
> POSSIBLE in theory from what is PRACTICAL. Going back to your initial hypo:
> you explained that a) you went to in the afternoon and got one price
> and b) you re-visited that site later in the evening and got a different
> price. And you believe that had purchased a profile between your
> afternoon and evening visits to resulted in your seat price
> increasing???? A MUCH more likely scenario is that the airline has booked
> some additional seats on that flight and is now charging more for each
> incremental seat. Or perhaps the airline just charges more for flights at
> night than during the day.
> So if this is your example of harm, you may want to keep looking (:
>>>> 2/ Democratic values
>>>> In confirmation of Godwin's law let me tell you that I think that 
>>>> totalitarianism doesn't need computers. But it makes life easier for 
>>>> them. The concentration of high amounts of personal data in few 
>>>> hands is a risk in the power balance.
>>> I agree - concentration of data in a small number of players is 
>>> problematic. How do you see DNT addressing this issue? In fact, I 
>>> think one can make a plausible argument that DNT will concentrate 
>>> data in a smaller number of entities. I believe that's a horrible 
>>> outcome that many in this group may be missing and/or choosing to 
>>> ignore.
>> You fail to give an argument for your assertion. While one can make a 
>> plausible argument, you'll have to make that argument to contradict me.
>> Why should the number of players be smaller if I can refuse collection? 
>> Note: a first party -by definition- can't collect cross site. Leaves 
>> you the 2-3 big fish. Those have a different
>> incentive: They are targets.
>> [...]
> If you put the third party intermediaries out of business - by definition
> the marketplace will be smaller.
>>> My point - There are going to be legitimate exceptions for the use of 
>>> data. And each exception should be weighed on the merits - benefit to 
>>> creating the exception vs risks of keeping the exception. My issue 
>>> with your approach is that you aren't really explaining what you 
>>> think the harm is to allowing my specific exception.
>> Because there is a fundamental transatlantic divide. We have that even 
>> internally. While the eastern part believes that the availability of 
>> organized personal data is very prone to abuse, the western part 
>> believes that it is all about use limitations. Give the data to the 
>> junkie but say: "do not use!". Some believe, some don't.
>> Note that those legitimate exceptions are law in EU. Self regulation 
>> has to re-invent those. For the unregulated, this is a test whether we 
>> can find a reasonable compromise without the formal democratic process.
> I have no idea what you mean hereŠ But while we're on the subject of
> providing arguments for your assertions, I'd invite you to provide a
> specific argument of harm that addresses the request for exemptions. If the
> is the best you can do, well...
>>>> It is therefore essential that somebody can just indicate to the 
>>>> system not to be recorded. And that the system just does not record, 
>>>> or at least throws away after a very short time. So DNT is just a 
>>>> tiny tool, a little aspect in this overall picture.
>>>> But it could be a useful tool. Now you may understand that recording 
>>>> the same information for accounting or PCMCP (a pure use limitation 
>>>> that is) is not sufficient for most people.
>>> What are these people you cite? Are you representing the interests of 
>>> consumers in the same way that Jeff and John are?
>> People just meant my grandma. I neither represent consumers nor 
>> industry nor W3C Team. Because the answer given here are not 
>> coordinated with the W3C Team. I'm just talking to you from my ivory 
>> tower of 15 years of privacy research. This is my second exercise after 
>> P3P, XACML privacy extensions and the like... But I see the polls that 
>> indicate that over 56% of Europeans erase _all_ their cookies at least 
>> once a month. 25% weekly (from the top of my head, search for 
>> eurobarometer).
>> 2002, the industry thought: "danger banned, no privacy provisions in 
>> the US, move on". And the browsers thought: "we manage cookies by 
>> blocking tools". Ten years after, we are back to the core semantic
>> problem: "Can I trust your assertions?". What does that tell me?
>> Everybody has to optimize in some direction. That's what this effort is 
>> all about. I have to optimize in the direction of excellence...
>> And putting in question the bases of the effort for financial reporting 
>> is against my optimization target. And there, your wording was much 
>> better (and stronger) than mine.
> Thank you. Its interesting that you reference P3P. Do you believe that P3P
> was a success? 
>> Rigo

Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 13:32:06 UTC