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: Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:57:45 -0400
Message-ID: <5149DC79.1050206@cdt.org>
To: public-tracking@w3.org
DNT is intended to operate as one global opt-out.  This standard will 
not be effective if DNT because a very narrow opt-out for some purposes, 
and you need to separately go to the DAA page to opt out of behavioral 
advertising, and later to the ESOMAR page to opt out of market 
research.  (And even then, both those opt-outs will suffer from the same 
problems we have today that DNT was designed to solve --- lack of 
comprehensiveness and impermanence.)

Justin Brookman
Director, Consumer Privacy
Center for Democracy & Technology
tel 202.407.8812

On 3/20/2013 11:38 AM, Kathy Joe wrote:
> Hi Rigo,
> Yes as signaled by this text:
>     In addition, the third party must be subject to an independent
>     certification process under the oversight of a generally-accepted
>     market research industry organization that maintains a web
>     platform providing user information about audience measurement
>     research. This web platform lists the parties eligible to collect
>     information under DNT standards and the audience measurement
>     research permitted use _and it provides users with an opportunity
>     to exclude their data contribution_
> Kathy
>     .*From:* Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
>     *To:* public-tracking@w3.org
>     *Cc:* Kathy Joe [mailto:kathy@esomar.org]
>     *Sent:* Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:33:13 +0100
>     *Subject:* Re: New text Issue 25: Aggregated data: collection and
>     use for audience measurement research
>     Katy,
>     in your suggested system, how could I signal to the audience
>     measurement
>     system that for some valid reason (looking at medical data), I don't
>     want to be calibrated for the next 5 clicks? Is there an opt-out?
>     --Rigo
>     On Tuesday 19 March 2013 17:00:01 Kathy Joe wrote:
>     > Here is a revised text for Issue 25 redrafted to take into account
>     > various comments on the previous draft.
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 15:58:13 UTC

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