- From: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:13:03 -0400
- To: Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net>
- Cc: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANZBoGgdMNvph1YsirhYV_Q5ke_Sw2vJc+pzogOnUD+cKshgfg@mail.gmail.com>
So your position is that the MRC documents do require companies to collect linkable data about every consumer? On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Chris Mejia <chris.mejia@iab.net> wrote: > Ed, I provided the original citation and the link to the MRC document > (at the request of Jeff Chester). I'm also a domain expert with respect to > this subject-matter. Jonathan's argument is not valid here (we have coved > that twice), nor is he a domain expert. I have presented the evidence to > this forum and I am attesting to it in my capacity as an industry expert in > this domain— what else would you like? > > > Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group | > Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB > > From: Ed Felten <ed@felten.com> > Date: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:59 PM > To: Chris Mejia - IAB <chris.mejia@iab.net> > Cc: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org> > > Subject: Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose > > 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 Wednesday, 24 October 2012 01:13:49 UTC