Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

Hi John,

While I can't speak for the audience measurement industry, I think they've
made it clear a few times already why they can't honor DNT:1 as its opt
out.  Specifically, the audience measurement industry (nor any industry,
for that matter), cannot rely on the validity of who set DNT:1 and whether
the user is truly wishing to opt out from audience measurement after
understanding the value exchange it provides.

Within providing the audience measurement opt out, they can ensure valid
explanation of the pros/cons, and they can trust that it truly is a
user-initiated request (and not set by a router, browser, plug-in, ISP,
etc.)

-Vinay


On 7/23/13 11:48 AM, "John Simpson" <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:

>I agree with Mike here.  I still don't understand the need for the
>permitted use. I also don't understand why industry is fine with its own
>opt-out, but doesn't want to honor DNT:1 as an opt-out.
>
>
>On Jul 23, 2013, at 12:10 AM, Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Rigo,
>> 
>> If user profiles are not used or built then why the necessity for
>> singling-out? Why have we not been given a definitive reason for
>> collecting/using UIDs?
>> 
>> Making the text work is not the only option, we could just not agree to
>>the
>> permitted use. The necessity for one has not been adequately justified.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
>> Sent: 23 July 2013 00:20
>> To: public-tracking@w3.org; rob@blaeu.com
>> Subject: Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses
>> 
>> Rob, 
>> 
>> before we take that on, we have to match Kathy's suggestion with Ronan's
>> interpretation. I have repeatedly asked whether audience measurement is
>>used
>> to target users either by changing their view on the web or by allowing
>>a
>> real time adaption of web content.
>> 
>> I was always told, this is not the case and that sporting
>>interpretations to
>> the contrary only engage those who are making them.
>> This is why Kathy included the bit about the recognized QA mechanism by
>>the
>> professional associations.
>> 
>> If you have concerns about people giving misinterpretations to Kathy's
>>text,
>> please indicate where those are. We can not lock down the practice of a
>> theoretic audience measurement company interpreting the text as a
>>permission
>> to create user profiles under the permitted use of "audience
>>measurement".
>> The only thing we can do is to make Kathy's text work.
>> 
>> And it may also be clear that a far too creative interpretation of
>>wording
>> from a potential compliance specification will not always be accepted
>>by all
>> authorities. So before killing Shane's vision of one data store for
>> permitted uses that you treat respectfully, I want to make sure we are
>>not
>> only talking past each other .
>> 
>> --Rigo
>> 
>> On Monday 22 July 2013 16:34:01 Rob van Eijk wrote:
>>> Peter,
>>> 
>>> I added a proposal for a new general principle for permitted uses to
>>> the wiki:
>>> 
>>> The reason this is relevant, is the recent discussion on audience
>>> measurement and frequency capping. An identifier set for one permitted
>>> use is currently not prohibited to use for another permitted use.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> == New general principle for permitted uses ==
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 5.2.5 no matching/syncing between permitted uses
>>> 
>>> Data collected or retained by a party for a specific permitted use
>>> must not be matched or synced with data from other permitted uses.
>>> 
>>> Disallowed Example: cookie syncing between permitted uses.
>> 
>> 
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 17:57:51 UTC