Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

Jeff, please help me understand the ethical dilemma here?  I'm not
following...

Thanks,

Chris



On 7/23/13 12:21 PM, "Jeffrey Chester" <jeff@democraticmedia.org> wrote:

>forcing DNT:1 users to have to agree to further action regarding the use
>of their data for measurement should raise ethical issues for the
>industry.  It is an inappropriate request given DNT:1 user intent.
>
>sent by mobile device. excuse typos please
>
>On Jul 23, 2013, at 1:57 PM, Vinay Goel <vigoel@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 Friday, 26 July 2013 22:05:58 UTC