- From: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:59:06 -0400
- To: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANZBoGicyYNQhDmEFO63D26O6LFgT683F6hmw5Xo7nYpAR_eqA@mail.gmail.com>
Jonathan's argument, as I understand it, was that the MRC documents do not require companies to collect linkable data about every consumer. Do you disagree with that? Do you have a citation in the documents to the contrary? On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net> wrote: > Jonathan, > > I sit on the MRC's Digital Audit Review Committee. As such, I have > attended countless MRC audits, and am asked to apply the MRC guidelines to > the audited companies— I do this, every week. Unless you are accusing me > of lying or not being qualified (please be transparent and direct if you > are), then I am attesting to the fact that data retention, of any data that > relates to the bought/billed unit (impression, click, action, etc.) is > required per the guidelines. The issue is by no means closed, nor are you > qualified to close it. > > If you want to provide evidence to the contrary, please contact the MRC > yourself and do your homework. You are a Stanford grad student, > representing Stanford University in this forum— I can only assume that > conducting thorough primary research is still something valued at your > institution. So if you believe you are right (and I am wrong), then do the > real primary research (call the MRC, interview them, etc.) and provide > concrete evidence to discredit my testimony as an expert in this domain. > But simply reading a document online and pulling parts of it out of > context to suit your ill-placed argument, is not only detrimental to this > working group's mission, it reflects poorly on the institution you are > representing. > > Finally, I'd like to know who your academic advisor is, or the official > at Stanford who supervises your contribution to the W3C? Since your > membership to this forum seems to be associated with your student > affiliation at Stanford University, I'd be interested in understanding > whether your views and actions here are those of the University, or just > yourself as a private citizen? > > > Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | > Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB > > From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> > Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:14 PM > To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com> > Cc: Kimon Zorbas - IAB Europe <vp@iabeurope.eu>, Jeffrey Chester < > jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>, > Richard Weaver - ComScore <rweaver@comscore.com>, "John Simpson ," < > john@consumerwatchdog.org>, W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List < > public-tracking@w3.org> > > Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose > Resent-From: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:15 PM > > Here's my concrete proposal: The MRC issue should be CLOSED. As > always, if a working group member produces new information, we should take > it into account. > > Background: The MRC issue was RAISED many months ago. We still haven't > been presented with an iota of evidence that the MRC guidelines require > collection of user data. A plain reading of the MRC Minimum Standards cuts > against that view. So does a plain reading of the draft MRC guidelines > on digital video. > > The issue appears to rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of the MRC > guidelines. The MRC, in general, specifies *how* a user's behavior is > measured. It does not address *whether* the behavior is measured in the > first place. > > I agree with Brooks—much of the MRC's language is antiquated or > domain-specific. But, for our purposes, the import seems reasonably clear. > And to the extent our plain reading is inaccurate, again, working group > members are welcome to present that new information. > > Jonathan > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote: > > Jonathan, > > I have no objection to, and indeed it does make sense to, learn(ing) > what MRC actually requires. In the meantime, while we agree that the full > extent of what is required is not yet yet fully understood, it is helpful > to avoid misleading folks that a standard which speaks to diaries, busy > signals and facsimiles and was started in the 60s has specifically > anticipated DNT signals at the rate likely to be seen by default settings; > it hasn't. > > -Brooks > > -- > > *Brooks Dobbs, CIPP *| Chief Privacy Officer |*KBM Group* | Part of the > Wunderman Network > (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | *kbmg.com* > *brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com > > > * > This email – including attachments – may contain confidential information. > If you are not the intended recipient, > do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender > immediately and delete the message. > > From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> > Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 11:49 AM > To: Brooks Dobbs <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com> > Cc: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>, Jeffrey Chester < > jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>, > "Richard Weaver (Comscore)" <rweaver@comscore.com>, "John Simpson ," < > john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" < > public-tracking@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose > > Brooks, > > Some members of the working group have claimed they require a Do Not > Track exemption to accommodate the MRC Minimum Standards for content > measurement. The nation is that the MRC Minimum Standards *require* some > data collection about users. Before even considering such an exemption, it > seems prudent to validate the premise—we should look into whether the MRC > Minimum Standards actually require any data collection. > > I agree that the MRC's document reads antiquated in many places. That > should come as little surprise—it traces back to 1964. (Latest version: > December 2011.) The document explicitly does not, however, limit itself to > old technology. In the provision we're discussing, it talks about " > diaries" and "tape records" (hah!), but it also includes "other primary > sources of audience data." (It seemed to me uncontroversial to elide > "diaries" and "tape records" to save the group a few moments of reading.) > Since the working group members who invoke MRC consistently cite an > eleven-month source data retention requirement, and this is the only > eleven-month source data retention requirement in the document, it seems > reasonable to conclude this is the relevant provision. > > So no, no straw man here. I'm attempting to honestly unpack the claim > that the MRC Minimum Standards require data collection about users. It > seems to me that, in a plain reading, they do not. Until a working group > member produces evidence otherwise, we should be safe in dropping the > proposed "relevant self-regulatory verification requirements" exemption. > > Jonathan > > > On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Dobbs, Brooks wrote: > > Jonathan, > > Did you really just accuse someone of creating a straw man and then > raise this as an example? > > Let's go back and add the actual words left out by your ellipsis: > > 1. > > Each rating service shall maintain, for at least eleven months from > the end of the period covered by the report, all diaries and interviews (or > a complete facsimile thereof), tape records and/or other primary sources of > audience data. These shall include material actually used in the > preparation of published rating reports as well as material collected but > not used. In addition, each service shall maintain records of: > > B) All unsuccessful attempts to obtain information, including- but not > limited to - refusals, not at home, cases requiring further discussion > and/or correspondence (e.g., with another member of the household), busy > signals (phone), and returns from postal authorities. > > It is pretty clear from reading this in full context that this has > nothing to do with web measurement (diaries, interviews, tape records were > conveniently redacted). Even the language about unsuccessful attempts is > unrelated. DNT ad calls are real ad calls that result in ad responses – > there is nothing "unsuccessful" about them. > > So none of that is meant to defend or degrade the MRC. I have no idea > if they are secretly plotting to disenfranchise the hispanic community. > Maybe they are and that should be dealt with outside this group. I do > know they provide measurement validation services that allow the entire ad > economy to work (not just Behavioral). Per my previous post – and to mix > metaphors – if no one trusts the scales no one is paying for advertising. > It has been said before, but is obviously worth repeating, upsetting core > measurement of a multi-tens of billion dollar ecosystem doesn't seem > consistent with the charter and is not an acceptable outcome. > > -Brooks > > > -- > > *Brooks Dobbs, CIPP *| Chief Privacy Officer |*KBM Group*| Part of the > Wunderman Network > (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | *kbmg.com* > *brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com > > > * > This email – including attachments – may contain confidential information. > If you are not the intended recipient, > do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender > immediately and delete the message. > > From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu> > Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:41 AM > To: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu> > Cc: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "Amy Colando (LCA)" < > acolando@microsoft.com>, Brooks Dobbs <brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com>, "Richard > Weaver (Comscore)" <rweaver@comscore.com>, "John Simpson ," < > john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" < > public-tracking@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose > > This is our second trip through the purported MRC justification. In > our last visit, I pointed out that the MRC guidelines anticipate that not > all users will have data collected. > > On Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Jonathan Mayer wrote: > > The MRC document explicitly accommodates consumers opting out of data > collection. Page 8: > > Each rating service shall maintain, for at least eleven months from the > end of the period covered by the report, all . . . primary sources of > audience data. These shall include material actually used in the > preparation of published rating reports as well as material collected but > not used. In addition, each service shall maintain records of: > . . . > b. All unsuccessful attempts to obtain information, including- but not > limited to - refusals . . . . > > Until a working group member can furnish an MRC or MRC-like > *requirement* that users have their browsing histories collected, this > entire conversation seems moot. > > Jonathan > > > On Monday, October 22, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Kimon Zorbas wrote: > > In Europe, we have Jics, industry committees, that run measurement in > (as far as I know) each country. > There is no agreed standard across Europe. > Sometimes they use their own technology (less often) sometimes partner > with companies such as Nielsen, comscore, Gemius, spring, etc. I am by no > means as expert on Jics. Unlike the MRC, Jics do not certify but mandate / > run the measurement, which de facto becomes THE standard in those countries. > > Colleagues from comscore / Nielsen might be better placed to respond. > > Kimon > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Jeffrey Chester" <jeff@democraticmedia.org> > To: "Kimon Zorbas" <vp@iabeurope.eu> > Cc: "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>, "Dobbs, Brooks" < > Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>, "Richard Weaver (Comscore)" <rweaver@comscore.com>, > "John Simpson ," <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" < > public-tracking@w3.org> > Subject: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose > Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 8:22 pm > > > > Kimon: Our measurement companies in US are not congressional chartered. > Can you send the names of the organizations you have in mind? > > > Jeffrey Chester > Center for Digital Democracy > 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550 > Washington, DC 20009 > www.democraticmedia.org > www.digitalads.org > 202-986-2220 > > On Oct 22, 2012, at 2:08 PM, Kimon Zorbas wrote: > > I also would like to point out that measurement in Europe works > somehow different with respect to organisational setup. We would like those > entities,not setup by the equivalent of European or national Congress, to > be reflected in the text. Would anyone have an issue? > > Kind regards, > Kimon > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com> > To: "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>, "Jeffrey Chester" < > jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "Richard Weaver (Comscore)" < > rweaver@comscore.com> > Cc: "John Simpson ," <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" > <public-tracking@w3.org> > Subject: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose > Date: Mon, Oct 22, 2012 6:30 pm > > > > You beat me to it Brooks. I'll just add my own analogy that MRC > accreditation is a way of ensuring accurate and consistent counting > methodologies of clicks and impressions, which form the basis for > calculating the amount that advertisers are billed and sites are paid. The > analogy that springs to mind is the state agencies that certify that gas > stations are measuring gallons of gas accurately and billing consumers > accordingly. > > The reason that you see so many companies on the MRC accreditation page is > that this certification as to accuracy of measurement is vitally important > for providing online advertising services, whether targeted or untargeted. > I believe your reference to Hispanic measurement refers perhaps to > demographics in relation to TV geo advertising markets; if so, I don't > understand the relevance to our discussion. > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ------------------------------ > From: Dobbs, Brooks > Sent: 10/22/2012 9:12 AM > To: Jeffrey Chester; Weaver, Richard > Cc: John Simpson ,; Amy Colando (LCA); public-tracking@w3.org > Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose > > Jeff, > > I think you are missing the MRC's role in the ecosystem here. We may > even need to do a 101 on the ad serving economy as compared to a more > tangible industry - say pork bellies in the commodities market. If this > is obvious, please forgive the review, but I think an analogy is helpful > here. > > If I spend $150k on 200k lbs of frozen pork bellies at 75 cents a pound > a huge tractor trailer(s) show up and I see frozen pork bellies. I can > further weigh them on an NTEP certified scale, and if it turns out that > only 180k lbs are there I can negotiate a $15k discount. We can agree on > this because even though the bellies were weighed at my facility, they > scales where certified by an organization both buyer and seller trust. > > If alternatively, I spend $150k on 10k CPMs of advertising on > Big1stParty.com at $15/CPM targeted to IP addresses in the Spokane WA > area from 4pm to 7pm local time – where's the beef? I live in Atlanta. If > the ad buy was delivered correctly, I should see exactly ZERO of the ads. > How then does the purchaser have confidence that all 10k CPMs occurred? > Advertisers have this confidence because they traditionally pay on numbers > that their system records, a log of "quality" deliveries. But the obvious > question is then – what about the seller? How does he have confidence in > the buyer's numbers? Couldn't the buyer have just thrown away 5k > impressions as invalid so as to avoid paying for them? MRC is the answer > here. MRC will give both parties confidence that they have a common frame > of reference from which to conduct business. The buyer (and/or seller) > will have his system MRC certified and there is an agreed upon counting > standardto use as a basis for payment. > > If you are suggesting that accommodating MRC audits shouldn't play a > role in these discussions, the argument is akin to saying no one should > certify scales in the commodities market. > > -Brooks > -- > > *Brooks Dobbs, CIPP *| Chief Privacy Officer |*KBM Group*| Part of the > Wunderman Network > (Tel) 678 580 2683 | (Mob) 678 492 1662 | *kbmg.com* > *brooks.dobbs@kbmg.com > > <image[50].png> > * > This email – including attachments – may contain confidential information. > If you are not the intended recipient, > do not copy, distribute or act on it. Instead, notify the sender > immediately and delete the message. > > From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org> > Date: Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:49 PM > To: "Weaver, Richard" <rweaver@comscore.com> > Cc: John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org>, Amy Colando < > acolando@microsoft.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose > Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Saturday, October 20, 2012 4:50 PM > > Thanks. I hope we aren't suggesting that somehow industry set > guidelines for its own MRC should in any way impact our work to provide > user choice in a meaningful manner for DNT. The MRC is a media/industry > industry run initiative, involved in a wide range of TV and online > measurement tools that play a key role in the user targeting experience: > http://mediaratingcouncil.org/Accredited%20Services.htm > > Companies involved with the Council include Google, Disney, Adobe, > comScore, AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. I suggest that it's guidelines do > not reflect the privacy concerns addressed by this group. The history of > ratings, as many of us know, has been quite controversial (such as Hispanic > measurement). Congress has been critical of many of the industry > practices. Is someone suggesting that there be a data retention source > period for one year or more to please the MRC? > > > > > Jeffrey Chester > Center for Digital Democracy > 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550 > Washington, DC 20009 > www.democraticmedia.org > www.digitalads.org > 202-986-2220 > > On Oct 17, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Weaver, Richard wrote: > > > > I hope Chris Mejia won’t mind that I’m cutting and pasting his previous > description of MRC: > > > According to the Media Rating Council (MRC), the normal retention period > for "source data" required for industry accreditation of third-party > audience estimates is 1-year, as documented in their published standards: " > *Minimum Standards for Media Rating Research*" (available for download at > http://mediaratingcouncil.org/MRC%20Standards.htm). Depending on the > case however (and on a case-by-case basis), special concessions may be made > outside of this standard from time to time as deemed appropriate by the > CPAs/auditor and the MRC. > > *About the MRC, their mission and authority:* > In the early 1960’s a U.S. Congressional Committee held hearings on the > purpose and accuracy of audience research and considered regulation related > to the TV and Radio industries. These public hearings are commonly > referred to as the “Harris Committee Hearings on Broadcast Ratings.” After > investigation and extensive testimony the Committee determined that > Industry self-regulation, including independent audits of rating services > was preferable to government intervention. The Harris Committee hearings > resulted in the formation of an Industry-funded organization to review and > accredit audience rating services called the Broadcast Rating Council (now > referred to as the MRC). > > Aligned with the actions deemed necessary by the House Committee, the > activities of the MRC include: > > - The establishment and administration of Minimum Standards for rating > operations; > - The accreditation of rating services on the basis of information > submitted by such services; and > - Auditing, through independent CPA firms, of the activities of the > rating services. > > > The Media Rating Council seeks to improve the quality of audience > measurement by rating services and to provide a better understanding of the > applications (and limitations) of rating information. The Bylaws of the > MRC document the organization’s mission as: “to secure for the media > industry and related users audience measurement services that are valid, > reliable and effective; to evolve and determine minimum disclosure and > ethical criteria for media audience measurement services; and to provide > and administer an audit system designed to inform users as to whether such > audience measurements are conducted in conformance with the criteria and > procedures developed.” This mission was established with the support of > the House Committee. > > More on the MRC at http://mediaratingcouncil.org/History.htm > > > > > Richard Weaver Deputy Privacy Officer | comScore, Inc. *(NASDAQ:SCOR)* > o +1 (703) 438-2354 | rweaver@comscore.com > > ........................................................................................................... > > > > *Introducing Mobile Metrix 2.0 - The next generation of mobile > behavioral measurement > *www.comscore.com/MobileMetrix<http://www.comscore.com/Products_Services/Product_Index/Mobile_Metrix_2.0> > > > *From:* John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org<john@consumerwatchdog.org> > ] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:14 PM > *To:* Amy Colando > *Cc:* public-tracking@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose > > I'm sorry, maybe I missed something -- it certainly wouldn't be the first > time -- but what is MRC accreditation? > > > ---------- > 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 > john@consumerwatchdog.org > > On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Amy Colando (LCA) wrote: > > > Hi John. > > This was intended to address the MRC accreditation scenario that was > previously raised. > > *From:* John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org<john@consumerwatchdog.org> > ] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:19 PM > *To:* Amy Colando (LCA) > *Cc:* public-tracking@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose > > Amy, > > A clarifying question: Can you please give a use case for what sort of > data would be collected for "relevant self-regulatory requirements"? > Thanks, > 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 > john@consumerwatchdog.org > > On Oct 17, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Amy Colando (LCA) wrote: > > > > Apologies that I have lost track of Action number, which I will look > up later. Many thanks to Vinay, MeMe and David W. for assisting with this > text. > > *6.1.1.9 Compliance with Local Law and Public Purpose* > > *Normative:* Regardless of DNT signal, information MAY be collected, > retained, used and shared for complying with applicable laws, regulations, > legal obligations and other public purposes, including, but not limited to, > intellectual property protection, delivery of emergency services, and > relevant self-regulatory verification requirements. > > *Non-normative: *This specification does not purport to require > parties to breach existing contractual obligations. At the same time, it > is expected that parties implementing this specification should not enter > into new contractual obligations that have the effect of circumventing > specification requirements. This specification recognizes that there are > legitimate self-regulatory regimes that both protect consumer interests and > govern certain data practices, and the specification does not intend to > conflict with these regimes. However, parties should whenever possible > adhere to the letter and spirit of this specification, and should not look > to such regimes as merely a means to circumvent the specification. > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Attachments
- image/png attachment: image_74_.png
- image/png attachment: image_67_.png
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 21:59:53 UTC