Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

How is asking the question again, to ensure that DNT for measurement sake is what a user meant to opt out of, an ethical issue?  I can see how some might see that as annoying to the user, but I'm not sure it's unethical.

Chris


From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>>
Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 3:09 PM
To: Chris Mejia - IAB <chris.mejia@iab.net<mailto:chris.mejia@iab.net>>
Cc: W3C DNT Working Group Mailing List <public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

Chris:

An individual who expresses a preference not to be tracked should not be forced into a measurement program.   We should respect their request.  I spoke to leading experts who raised this.



Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org<http://www.democraticmedia.org>
www.digitalads.org<http://www.digitalads.org>
202-986-2220

On Jul 26, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Chris Mejia wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>; rob@blaeu.com<mailto: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.