W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Adage article

From: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 13:05:50 -0400
To: Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
CC: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCA5FC67.239AE%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Hi Lauren - 

FYI - It is not uncommon for members of this working group to post articles
that speak to this group's work. For example, John Simpson recently posted
an article about Apache Software's reaction to MSFT's implementation of
IE10. I trust you sent a similar note to John, correct?  (:

But to better address your question  why did I post this article? I thought
it was interesting that someone else recognizes that DNT may carry
anti-competitive concerns. In Amsterdam, there was a significant issue
raised -- one that seemed to indicate that it would be ok for First Parties
to take their own data and use it for ad targeting across the internet. This
seemed like a significant expansion of what I would characterize as First
Party immunity to DNT. I was struck by the number of people in the room who
seemed to think this is a good thing.

If you or others think this is a good outcome  fair enough. But I think its
also fair for me to ask if whether all of implications have been considered.
When we look back five years from now on what will be considered a watershed
moment, members of this working group will have their names association with
these decisionsŠ Forgive me if you believed this was the deal that was
struck all along. I admit, while not entirely comfortable with some of the
First Party exceptions in this spec, I didn't think of them potentially as
absolute  until Amsterdam.

I hope that answers your question.


From:  Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>
Date:  Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:13 PM
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc:  "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Adage article
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:14:28 +0000

> The privacy advocates following this would DEFINITELY prefer this to be
> applied to first parties.  But all the messaging **since the FTC report** has
> been clear that this process was to be limited.  There are hundreds of
> messages on this topic from back in 2011.  But in the interest of compromise
> and in order to jump start the working group, the privacy groups agreed to
> contain this process to 3rd parties.
> Maybe you are unfamiliar with this history because you have not been involved
> in the process that long??Otherwise, best I can guess is that you are trying
> to goad people into arguing on this point, with the hope that if there is
> enough critique from all sides, it will kill DNT.
> Lauren Gelman
> BlurryEdge Strategies
> 415-627-8512
> On Oct 18, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>> I thought many of your would find this interestingŠ
>> http://adage.com/article/digitalnext/real-impact-track/237808/
>> -a
Received on Saturday, 20 October 2012 17:06:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:58 UTC