- From: Walter van Holst <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:27:12 +0200
- To: public-tracking@w3.org
On 10/24/12 4:13 AM, David Wainberg wrote: > > On 10/23/12 8:34 PM, Dan Auerbach wrote: >> the onus is on me to explain privacy risks through examples > > Please do. There continues to be reluctance to specify the exact risks > we're trying to address with this standard. It would be extremely useful > for us to finally enumerate the problems we're trying to solve so that > we can zero in on the appropriate solutions. Thanks! I am sorry David, but we're dealing here with fundamental human rights. To take a horrible historical analogy: there was much resistance against abolition of slavery in the Southern US states for economic reasons. The mere fact that a billion dollar industry has sprung up around what is essentially stalking internet usage to the point that Orwell comes across as an optimist does not put a burden of proof on the side of those who advocate for privacy and freedom of expression to provide exact numbers. Dan was talking about giving examples, not about 'exact risks'. Do not forget that a lack of privacy also erodes freedom of expression by putting barriers to access information. To give an example of a risk we're talking about is the prevalence of 'like' buttons on pages, including those of newssites. That allows Facebook to compile a list of all news articles a Facebook user reads. I think a society in which entities not only know which newspapers you read, but also which articles and are even capable of measuring how much time you've spent on each of them, is post-Orwellian. This also brings me back why I don't think an exception for third-party trackers that also happen to be first-party trackers is in place. It should be mentioned there is a business interest in behavioural advertising. And that interest is even perfectly legitimate under sound consent conditions. I think this discussion is essential fruitless because it is based on a fundamental wrong assumption: that there is a legitimate business interest in processing data for which users have given an express opt-out signal. At the core we all (at least I hope) want a nimble standard to provides a mechanism for expressing consent or lack thereof. Regards, Walter
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 10:27:42 UTC