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

Kathy, Rob, 

thanks for the discussion so far. 

On Saturday 09 March 2013 13:53:48 Rob van Eijk wrote:
> Because these metrics are about users instead of usage, DNT must be
> meaningful. 

It burns down to whether the outreach measurement can continue without 
change in implementation. It looks like the hope is that DNT will go 
away without need for a change even in the presence of DNT:1. For the 
moment, I see lawyer-argumentation: "See, we do something super 
important and not evil at all that should just continue under DNT:1". 

By doing so, they collect information that citizens are not even willing 
to let governments collect in Europe (non issue in the US anyway because 
of the first party measurement possibility). We had large demonstrations 
on data retention. 

Question is when do the market researchers feel a pain point and 
acknowledge that they need to do something in their technology. 

I think this pain point will arrive when the metrics get really really 
unreliable because people block all the measureIDs and cookies and 
things. The challenge for us is that, today, nobody seems to believe 
that this point will come and thus no reason for investment.

This leaves us with a power-relation that is either settled in talks or 
in courts. I would prefer talks. Perhaps we can still find a way to make 
important outreach measurement happen in a way that is acceptable to 
more privacy oriented people. And the market researchers may want to 
come up with a story on how do they want to react on DNT:1. "Not at all" 
is not a very satisfactory answer. But leaving them alone with the prob 
is not fair either. So I suggest to explore the stakeholders' 
willingness to brainstorm. 


Received on Sunday, 10 March 2013 19:39:38 UTC