Re: DNT:1 and "data append"

Thanks for the clarification and I apologize.  We agree (oy vey, another problem for Randy R!).  Can you give example of off line data collected in real-time? Do you mean, for example, geo-location, payment and other info collected via sentient services that can be bundled into the profile?

I appreciate this discussion.




Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org
www.digitalads.org
202-986-2220

On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:

> Jeff:
> 
> I'm a bit surprised that I seem to be taking a more stringent position than you in this area, but it may be an issue of misunderstanding on my part. Allow me to rephrase:
> 
> Data collected from online sources and used for online ad targeting is subject to DNT.
> Data collected from offline sources and used for online ad targeting is NOT subject to DNT. (a separate product)
> 
> Is that your position?
> 
> Does your position change if the offline data is obtained in a real time environment?
> 
> From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
> Date: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:34 AM
> To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
> Cc: Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: DNT:1 and "data append"
> Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:35:11 +0000
> 
>> Alan:
>> 
>> Users should expect that their online data used for append products will not be incorporated into the targeting profile.  Databrokers may be able to provide offline and public data as a separate product.  But under DNT: 1, online tracking data should not be gathered or used.  DNT should foster better privacy practices in the real-time targeting data environment.
>> 
>> 
>> Jeffrey Chester
>> Center for Digital Democracy
>> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
>> Washington, DC 20009
>> www.democraticmedia.org
>> www.digitalads.org
>> 202-986-2220
>> 
>> On Mar 27, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Alan Chapell wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, the DNT HTTP header is an expression about an online transaction.
>>> When DNT is enacted, an online transaction can't be tailored by a profile.
>>> Whether that profile was derived from 1) a URL string across multiple
>>> website visits or 2) an offline database should not matter. A User seeking
>>> not to be tracked while online is unlikely to be able to make such
>>> distinctions - and neither should we.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3/27/13 1:26 AM, "Nicholas Doty" <npdoty@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 25, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Alan Chapell
>>>> <achapell@chapellassociates.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks David. Perhaps this will help clarify where some of the confusion
>>>>> lay. In any event, I look forward to discussing further on Wednesday.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 3/21/13 3:16 PM, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I remain somewhat puzzled by this discussion.  Let's see if I can
>>>>>> explain
>>>>>> my puzzlement, and maybe the answers will help shed light.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> DNT is an expression about privacy in an online transaction (between a
>>>>>> user and their user-agent, and a server, over HTTP or similar
>>>>>> protocols).
>>>>> 
>>>>> I recognize that this is the position of some in the group.
>>>> 
>>>> Is there disagreement on this part of David's summary? The DNT HTTP
>>>> header is quite directly an expression about a particular online
>>>> transaction. The group agreed very early on to make the expression apply
>>>> to that particular request (which an HTTP header is well-suited for) and
>>>> not to imply, for example, retroactive deletion.
>>>> 
>>>>> It's worth
>>>>> noting that this is not how DNT is described in the charter. The charter
>>>>> describes DNT as a "preference expression mechanism ("Do Not Track") and
>>>>> technologies for selectively allowing or blocking tracking elements."
>>>>> 
>>>>> I note that we have chosen not to define tracking or "tracking elements"
>>>>> in this working group, which may be a reason for some of the confusion.
>>>> 
>>>> To provide some context, the text in the charter "selectively allowing or
>>>> blocking tracking elements" referred to formats for determining white and
>>>> black listing for blocking purposes; we did some early work on the
>>>> Tracking Selection Lists specification, working from a submission from
>>>> Microsoft. The group has subsequently decided to stop work on those
>>>> deliverables, with the preference for not working on formats that would
>>>> enable blocking.
>>>> 
>>>> While "Do Not Track" in the press or in the terms of some companies has
>>>> been used to refer to almost any privacy or blocking measure, we have
>>>> used it here (and the charter follows this convention) to refer to the
>>>> preference expression mechanism -- where you express the preference "Do
>>>> Not Track" -- and not to blocking mechanisms, even though lists for
>>>> selectively blocking HTTP requests were also in scope of the Tracking
>>>> Protection Working Group.
>>>> 
>>>> Hope this provides some clarity,
>>>> Nick
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>