- From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:44:35 -0400
- To: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>, <public-tracking@w3.org>
Hi Walter - Thanks for forwarding. This paper was published in 2002, correct? A few comments below inline On 10/11/12 1:30 PM, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl> wrote: >On 10/11/12 7:19 PM, Jeffrey Chester wrote: >> Alan. Could you please clarify. Are you saying that you and/or your >> clients believe that the loss of privacy from contemporary digital >> marketing practices is not a "harm." This will help in the discussion. > >To add to this conversation, I think this article in the Journal of >Business Ethics may shed some light on the issue for those unaware of >the dangers of tracking and/or unaware of the current theories in >business ethics: > >Electronic Monitoring and Privacy Issues in Business-Marketing: The >Ethics of the DoubleClick Experience > >The paper examines the ethics of electronic monitoring for advertising >purposes and the implications for Internet user privacy using as a >backdrop DoubleClick Inc's recent controversy over matching previously >anonymous user profiles with personally identifiable information. It >explores various ethical theories that are applicable to understand >privacy issues in electronic monitoring. >It is argued that, despite the >fact that electronic monitoring always constitutes an invasion of >privacy, it can still be ethically justified on both Utilitarian and >Kantian grounds. From a Utilitarian perspective the emphasis must be on >minimizing potential harms. Interesting point. And very relevant to this discussion. As I'm providing input into Permitted Uses, I've argued for some flexibility so as to avoid putting third parties in a position where they are conflicting either with DNT or another competing standard. This argument has received some pushback. Some in the group believe that DNT should just trump all competing or conflicting standards - which I believe is impractical. Therefore, I've asked Jeff, Jonathan and others for some real-life examples on the harms they are trying to minimize so that I can help tailor Permitted Uses to address those harms. Thus far, I've received information on a) harms that are out of the scope of DNT, b) high level examples that are incredibly vague to as to make it almost impossible to find practical approaches to address the purported harms in our work here. If this is all they can offer, well then it might be time to remove those objections to my request for flexibility in Permitted Users so the group can move forward productively. >From a Kantian perspective the emphasis must >be on giving users complete information so that they can make informed >decisions as to whether they are willing to be monitored. This speaks less to the harm issue, and more towards the benefits of requiring the browsers to "give() users complete information" and very clearly describe what DNT means. Do you agree? >Considering >the Internet advertising industry's current actions, computer users and >government regulators would be well advised, both practically and >ethically, to move to a user control model in electronic monitoring. > >Full text can be retrieved through >http://www.springerlink.com/content/vh9769lbpr09486c/ > >Regards, > > Walter > > >
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 18:45:11 UTC