Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

I understand. The "problem" from my perspective is how best to facilitate consumer choice in the collection and use of passively emitted signals in web interactions.

There are some examples of deeper concerns I can offer, such as a reluctance of users to be profiled, the desire for individuals to have a "safe space" free of surveillance (necessary for innovative, creative and free thought in a democracy... this is from my perspective as a USA'n) and users gaining a better understanding of the implicit bargains they enter into during web interactions (which is why I'm a big fan of rich exception interactions but also meaningful transparency for users (more applicable to the NTIA MSH process)).

I didn't mean to dig unnecessarily deep into business practices, but after a recent phone call with Chris, I was blown away by the care and precision implied by the MRC audit process and had been completely ignorant of that mechanism and what the inputs and outputs needed there.

best, Joe

--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Senior Staff Technologist
Center for Democracy & Technology
https://www.cdt.org/

On Oct 29, 2012, at 14:35, David Wainberg <david@networkadvertising.org> wrote:

> Hi Joe,
> 
> I wonder if there's fundamental discrepancy in how we all think this process should work. There's been absolutely no interest in detailing the problems we're trying to solve. It's hard to solve for something when we don't have good working examples of the problems we're trying to solve.
> 
> At the same time, advocates in the group have been asking for more and more detailed information about current practices in the industry. And those of us who represent industry have been very willing to share our knowledge. But if the notion is to dig deeper and deeper into the business practices of the online advertising industry and then decide whether or how or under what conditions those practices can continue, we should probably stop here. I know most in the industry are very interested in seeing a sensible policy for DNT that addresses real privacy concerns, and when we have that industry will adapt its practices accordingly, so let's focus on that.
> 
> -David
> 
> On 10/29/12 2:09 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>> You can imagine how it's hard to accommodate something for which we don't have a good working example. best, Joe
>> 
>> On 10/29/12 11:55 AM, Chris Mejia wrote:
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> 
>>> Good speaking with you the other day.  I think you are headed in the right
>>> direction here, but unfortunately, these audit reports are very
>>> sensitive-- as they go into granular detail, exposing exact methods,
>>> practices and trade secrets that are confidential and sensitive to the
>>> audited party, and thus are only shared with between the audited party,
>>> the 3rd party auditor, and the MRC in the strictest of confidence.  That
>>> stated, there may very well be something that can be shared to benefit
>>> this group, I just don't know what it would be, so I'd defer that question
>>> to the MRC itself.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> 
>>> Chris
>>> 
>>> Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group |
>>> Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/26/12 5:09 PM, "Joseph Lorenzo Hall" <joe@cdt.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Something that would be particularly valuable to methodologists like
>>>> myself would be if there were an MRC/audit/whatever report that could
>>>> be shared with this group in full (they presumably have a lot of
>>>> proprietary and confidential information, no?). Such a thing may not be
>>>> possible but it sounds like the independence of the MRC in ensuring ad
>>>> quality is an important part of the ad side of this. best, Joe
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Joseph Lorenzo Hall
>>>> Senior Staff Technologist
>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology
>>>> 1634 I ST NW STE 1100
>>>> Washington DC 20006-4011
>>>> (p) 202-407-8825
>>>> (f) 202-637-0968
>>>> joe@cdt.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2012 14:57:34 UTC