W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Fw: New text Issue 25: Aggregated data: collection and use for audience measurement research

From: Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 13:26:22 +0000
To: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>, Kathy Joe <kathy@esomar.org>, "peter@peterswire.net" <peter@peterswire.net>, "justin@cdt.org" <justin@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <068091FD-B28A-4122-8BF4-A07AF644FA02@iabeurope.eu>
Once again, all points at agreeing on a definition of tracking.

Kind regards,

----- Reply message -----
From: "Rob van Eijk" <rob@blaeu.com>
To: "Kimon Zorbas" <vp@iabeurope.eu>, "Kathy Joe" <kathy@esomar.org>, "peter@peterswire.net" <peter@peterswire.net>, "justin@cdt.org" <justin@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Fw: New text Issue 25: Aggregated data: collection and use for audience measurement research
Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 2:22 pm

Hi Kimon,

Lets take audience measurement as a usecase in the Global Considerations meeting next week, and work from there. If text comes out of that effort, we will feed it back to Issue 25.

My stance for the moment is that a DNT must be a strong and meaningful DNT that also takes into account fundamental rights to privacy, not just arguments that are geared toward legitimizing a business model that gave way to the expression to not wanting to be tracked in the first place.


Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu> wrote:

we need audience measurement. It's THE part of internet that underlines everything. It's only using data in aggregate and not about communicating back to users.

Why don't you tell us how you would like to change the text and we can work on wording, see if there can be a meaningful compromise?

Kind regards,

----- Reply message -----
From: "Rob van Eijk" <rob@blaeu.com>
To: "Kathy Joe" <kathy@esomar.org>, "peter@peterswire.net" <peter@peterswire.net>, "justin@cdt.org" <justin@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: Fw: New text Issue 25: Aggregated data: collection and use for audience measurement research
Date: Wed, Mar 6, 2013 2:02 pm

Thanks Kathy,

I want to add to the discussion that panel members are a form of out of band consent and can therefore be left out of scope for DNT.
For users who have not opted-in to audience measurement, my position is that DNT must be meaningful. A wide interpretation of audience measurement under a generic exception for aggregated reporting should not be the way forward.

Talking shortly to David Stark on this, he suggested to increase transparence by using a visible element on a page, instead of a hidden pixel. I think it is a great idea. It enables transparency, and is an important step towards convincing users to give consent to audience measurement.

I will add to that, in the discussion here, that the pixel is not the right technology under DNT to fulfull the audience measurement need. My position is that if the technology is not capable of triggering an exception as suggested in the technical spec, the way forward should not be to allow for that limitation in technology throug an exception in the compliance spec.

In short, I raise severe concerns against the proposed text.


Kathy Joe <kathy@esomar.org> wrote:

Here below is the revised text for issue 25 discussed with Justin and others in the group with some modifications to take Justin's comments into account.

Information may be collected to create statistical measures of the reach in relation to the total population, and frequency of exposure of the content to the online audience, including paid components of web pages. One such method is through using a panel of users who have affirmatively agreed to have their media consumption and web surfing behavior measured across sites.

The panel output is calibrated by counting actual hits on tagged content and re-adjusting the results in order to ensure data produced from the panel accurately represents the whole audience. The counts must be pseudonomised. Counts are retained for sample, quality control, and auditing purposes during which time contractual measures mus!
 t be in
place to limit access to, and protect the data from other uses. A 53 week retention period is necessary so that month over month reports for a one year period may be re-run for quality checking purposes, after which the data must be de-identified. The counted data is largely collected on a first party basis, but to ensure complete representation, some will be third party placement. This collection tracks the content rather than involving the collection of a user's browser history.

The purposes must be limited to:

facilitating online media valuation, planning and buying via accurate and reliable audience measurement.

optimizing content and placement on an individual site.

Audience measurement data must be reported as aggregated information such that no recipient is able to build commercial profiles about particular individuals or devices.

To clarify a comment from Justin about auditing, note that  audience measurement sys!
(whether TV, radio, print or online) are usually managed or monitored by an independent body as
guarantee of accuracy with various stakeholders in a joint industry body defining what is needed to provide a robust and impartial system.

MRC handles this in the US whilst the JICWEBs reporting standards of ABC handles this in the UK and AGMA  is the German audit body. Here is
a longer list  http://www.i-jic.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=55143f172846ed39c7958cbeb837a85a
and here is ABC  http://www.abc.org.uk/PageFiles/50/Web%20Traffic%20Audit%20Rules%20and%20Guidance%20Notes%20version2%20March%202013%20master.pdf


Kathy Joe

Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 13:27:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:06 UTC