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

Kimon,

There are at least 2 approaches. Let me point out 2 of them: One that formalizes the concept of tracking by starting with a definition. I would call this top - down. The other is finding out which phenomena are problematic and relevant. I would call this bottom up. The top - down approach needs a shared definition of tracking. The bottom - up approach does not need this at all.

RobvE 
 

Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu> wrote:

>Once again, all points at agreeing on a definition of tracking.
>
>Kind regards,
>Kimon
>
>----- 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.
>
>RobvE
>
>Kimon Zorbas <vp@iabeurope.eu> wrote:
>Rob,
>
>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,
>Kimon
>
>----- 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.
>
>RobvE
>
>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!
> tems
>(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
>
>Regards
>
>Kathy Joe
>ESOMAR
>
>
>
>
>!