RE: Initial Work Plan on Change Proposals, including for next Wednesday

Rob,

While I disagree with your opinion, I deeply respect your perspective so please help me understand where you see the definition for Tracking not working in these cases.  Once we define “Tracking” and our focus is “Do Not Track”, I see it as a logical test to look at company activities in this light and determine is a particular practice “Tracking” or “Not Tracking” – hence my use of these terms.

- Shane

From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:58 AM
To: Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: RE: Initial Work Plan on Change Proposals, including for next Wednesday


Shane,

Your definition of tracking remains inadequate IMHO.

Especially since your reasoning for aggregated scoring is based on 'not tracking'. In that way you use your definition to create a leverage with 'not retaining', to put the data practice of interest based behavioural advertising out of scope.

Your answer suggest that I should look at the means first (hashed pseudonyms) in order to figure out whether it is subject to DNT and de-identification, whereas it is easy (for me at least) to confuse this case with targeted advertising which is based on a compare and not retaining information.

mvg::Rob


Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:
Rob,


Aggregate Scoring and De-Identification are two very different things.  Your email highlighted that “hashed pseudoymns” could become linkable – this is part of the de-identification discussion, not aggregate scoring.  Your most recent email now crosses over to Aggregate Scoring which I agree is considered “not tracking”.


- Shane


From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:26 AM
To: Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Initial Work Plan on Change Proposals, including for next Wednesday



Shane, you are confusing me. As I understood from yesterday, under the strict definition of tracking, this example would most likely qualify as 'not tracking'. Where do we disconnect?

Rob
Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:
Rob,


In this example, Twitter is purposely allowing for mapping between hashed identifiers whereas in the industry proposal this is expressly prohibited and will require a combination of technical, operational, and administrative controls to develop a level of reasonable confidence this process cannot be reverse engineered.


- Shane


From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:26 PM
To: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Initial Work Plan on Change Proposals, including for next Wednesday



Example of the linkability of hashed pseudonyms: https://blog.twitter.com/2013/experimenting-with-new-ways-to-tailor-ads, a nice use case that shows that the definition of de-identified in the DAA proposal may cause problems.

Rob
Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com<mailto:rob@blaeu.com>> wrote:

Peter,

We have gotten to the point that the only logical and responsible way forward IMHO is to task industry to chop up the DAA proposal into change proposals and include these in the wiki that Nick painstakingly kept up to date.

Next week, I hope that the group will want to dive deeper into the discussion on de-identification, when Shane and Dan are back. Dan put out a reasonable request on the mailing list, after having put in a lot of work on the topic of de-identification.

Rob
Dan Auerbach <dan@eff.org<mailto:dan@eff.org>> wrote:
Hi Peter and everyone,

I'm unfortunately on vacation next week and won't be available for this call. I have given a lot of thought and energy to the de-identification and unique id issues, so would like the opportunity to further discuss the following week once I'm back before any decisions are made. I will catch up with the minutes. I'd love to get to agreement on these issues, but they are tough and important, so we need to proceed carefully.

Below are some quick comments addressing some of your questions:

On 06/28/2013 02:56 PM, Peter Swire wrote: