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

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

From: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:39:40 -0700
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
CC: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>, Kathy Joe <kathy@esomar.org>, "justin@cdt.org" <justin@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CD627088.71BC5%peter@peterswire.net>
I look forward to seeing the people who are in Berlin for the Global
Considerations Task Force meeting that starts on Monday.  I think the
timing of this meeting has helped prompt a lively and informative
discussion about audience measurement.

As said on previous calls, I will not be participating in this Wednesday's
call because I will be flying back to the US at that time.  Matthias is
scheduled to chair the weekly call on TPE issues.

My own suspicion is that we will likely discuss audience measurement in
the full group going forward. The discussion scheduled for 14:30 Berlin
time on Monday will be a most useful step toward discussion in the full
group.  Note that Berlin is currently 5 hours ahead of the US east coast
(a change of an hour due to daylight savings time).

Best,

Peter

Professor Peter P. Swire
C. William O'Neill Professor of Law
    Ohio State University
240.994.4142
www.peterswire.net





-----Original Message-----
From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Organization: W3C
Date: Sunday, March 10, 2013 2:39 PM
To: "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Cc: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>, Kathy Joe <kathy@esomar.org>, Peter
Swire <peter@peterswire.net>, Justin  Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Subject: 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.
>
> --Rigo
Received on Sunday, 10 March 2013 21:40:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:07 UTC