Re: Defining Issue-5: What is tracking?

Thanks John. I appreciate your correcting the record and I apologize if I
misrepresented your sentiments.

 A few specific thoughts below ­ but first a more general thought. A few
others in the WG have told me privately that they have an issue with the
notion of first parties being able to take their own data and use it for ad
targeting across the internet under this spec. I would encourage those of
you to express this view more publicly. Your silence is deafening.

Please see the rest in-lineŠ


From:  John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
Date:  Friday, October 5, 2012 5:53 PM
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Defining Issue-5: What is tracking?

> Alan,
> 
> I agree that first parties should NOT be able to use data gathered while
> acting as a first party to target users when they are operating as third
> parties.  I said that on the telephone during the Amsterdam F2F meeting.  I
> specifically suggested that I would be opposed to Google or Yahoo! using data
> gathered on their 1st party sites on their ad networks. (That was probably bad
> form.  I think I'm supposed to cite use cases without naming companies.)
> Perhaps you were not in the room?

This may be one of the challenges of having folks participate on the phone.
My apologies ­ as I completely missed that point from you. While a few had
expressed support for my opinion (a smattering of +1's on IRC), I was
shocked when I realized that this was an acceptable outcome from many of
those who purport to represent consumers. That said, if I missed your
sentiments, I may have missed others. I invite those persons to correct the
record now. As Jeff likes to say, the world is watchingŠ

> 
> I've always believed that DNT should put more obligations on 1st parties than
> is the case in the current draft standard and have always spoken up to remind
> those who have said it places none that it does in fact require they don't
> share data with a 3rd party.  The consensus around few first-party
> requirements had already emerged when I joined the working group about a year
> ago and unfortunately (in my view) the FTC in its privacy report takes the
> same view.
> 
> Finally I'm puzzled by your preference for Roy's definition of tracking.  He
> said:
> 
> "Tracking is any non-consensual collection, correlation, or transfer of
> data about the Internet activities of a particular user, user agent, or
> device beyond the (first party) context in which that activity occurred."
> 
> Cheers,
> ....Roy"
> 
> As I read this, his definition does not include first-party data collecting as
> tracking.  My definition calls it tracking, but then I would spell out in the
> spec what first-party tracking would be allowed.  Given your expressed concern
> about what 1st parties can do that 3rd parties cannot, I'd have thought you
> would want 1st party data collection to count as tracking.

This is a fair point ­ and one of the inherent challenges of a) having a
collection based approach, and b) not always clearly defining what it is
we're trying to accomplish within this working group. In any event, I'll
rethink this and get back to you in a few days.



> 
> I would find this modification of Roy's definition acceptable:
> 
> "Tracking is any non-consensual collection, correlation, or transfer of
> data about the Internet activities of a particular user, user agent, or
> device."
> 
> Finally, I did not intend to make accusations.  I was explaining what
> conclusion I would reach IF the people who had been calling for definitions
> failed to offer their own.  I am not there yet. Please note that I said I
> would sadly draw that conclusion and I would be sad, for I am genuinely trying
> to move toward a consensus that is good for business and consumers.
> 
> So in that spirit, I have offered two definitions.  One original;  one a
> modification of Roy's who engaged in the discussion.  Again, my preferred
> position is silence on a specific definition of tracking with the
> understanding that tracking would be whatever the specification prohibits when
> a site receives a DNT:1 message. However, if a specific definition helps get
> us consensus, let's consider some.
> 
> I ask again, those of you who are most concerned by the failure to define
> tracking specifically and who were calling for definitions, could you please
> offer yours?
> 
> I hope everyone in Amsterdam has a good trip back home.
> 
> 73s,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> John M. Simpson
> Consumer Advocate
> Consumer Watchdog
> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
> Santa Monica, CA,90405
> Tel: 310-392-7041
> Cell: 310-292-1902
> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org <http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
> john@consumerwatchdog.org
> 
> On Oct 4, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Alan Chapell wrote:
> 
>>  John ­ the definition of tracking means very little if first parties are
>> able to take their own data and use it for ad targeting across the internet.
>> While I recognize that you may not be a big fan of third parties, I can't
>> believe that you think that's a good outcome for privacy or fostering
>> competition. And as someone who ­ in your own words ­ made the big concession
>> to "industry" that has now created this mess, it would be helpful for you to
>> communicate your displeasure about this rather than make accusations about
>> others stalling the process. If you do  in fact think this is a good outcome
>> for privacy or competition, I would invite you to communicate this on the
>> record as well.
>> 
>> That said ­ I liked Roy's working definition.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From:  John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>
>> Date:  Thursday, October 4, 2012 7:10 PM
>> To:  "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)"
>> <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> Subject:  Defining Issue-5: What is tracking?
>> Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> Resent-Date:  Thu, 04 Oct 2012 23:10:28 +0000
>> 
>>> Colleagues,
>>> 
>>> As many of you may have seen, I've been up all night for the past two days
>>> following the "discussions" in Amsterdam making a nuisance of myself on IRC
>>> asking people to remember to speak into the microphone.  I've repeatedly
>>> heard calls for definitions, particularly that of "tracking."
>>> 
>>> I have long held the view that one is not necessary for the spec; you need
>>> only spell out how to send the DNT header and what your obligations are when
>>> you get one. However, in the spirit of a genuine desire to move toward
>>> consensus I recently offered a definition on the list.  So far only Roy
>>> Fielding, another one of us participating from afar, responded. Here is what
>>> I proposed:
>>> 
>>> "Tracking is the collection and correlation of data about the Internet
>>> activities of a particular user, computer, or device, over time and across a
>>> website or websites."
>>> 
>>> Here is a link to the email chain:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/5
>>> 
>>> May I suggest that those who have repeatedly been calling for a definition
>>> now offer one?  Otherwise I would sadly reach the conclusion that such calls
>>> are nothing but deliberate attempts to stall the process and undermine the
>>> Working Group's efforts.
>>> 
>>> As ever,
>>> John
>>> 
>>> ----------
>>> John M. Simpson
>>> Consumer Advocate
>>> Consumer Watchdog
>>> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
>>> Santa Monica, CA,90405
>>> Tel: 310-392-7041
>>> Cell: 310-292-1902
>>> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org <http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/>
>>> john@consumerwatchdog.org
>>> 
>