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

ISSUE-25 on the agenda for the October 02 call

From: Kathy Joe <kathy@esomar.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:52:13 +0200
To: "Rob Sherman" <robsherman@fb.com>, "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>, "(public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Edward W. Felten" <felten@CS.Princeton.EDU>
Cc: "David Stark" <david.stark@gfk.com>, "'Weaver, Richard'" <rweaver@comscore.com>, "Ronan Heffernan" <ronan.heffernan@nielsen.com>, "Berkower, Elise" <elise.berkower@nielsen.com>, George.Pappachen@kantar.com, "'Adam Phillips'" <adam.phillips@realresearch.co.uk>, "Israel, Susan" <Susan_Israel@Comcast.com>
Message-ID: <20131004095213.5513ac36@zeus.local>
Hi Rob,

 

Many thanks for your note.  

 

Whilst there might be a range of audience measurement techniques, Issue 25 is specifically in connection with calibrating data obtained via opted-in panels.

 

The key point is that since Issue 25 requires that only aggregated data be provided to clients, and that there is no release of PII collected for AMR for other purposes, we believe there needs to be independent oversight to check that companies claiming the AMR exemption are complying, with consistent application worldwide, also providing consumer information to provide an additional level of transparency and education for users.

 

We would be willing to move the paragraph on the ‘independent certification process’ to the non-normative section, especially as it was pointed out that the W3C standards do not include other compliance requirements. We also remain open to further discussion as the standard evolves in practice.


Kathy Joe,







Director, International Standards and Public Affairs








To: Kathy Joe [mailto:kathy@esomar.org], Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) [mailto:mts-std@schunter.org], (public-tracking@w3.org) [mailto:public-tracking@w3.org], Edward W. Felten [mailto:felten@CS.Princeton.EDU]
Cc: David Stark [mailto:david.stark@gfk.com], 'Weaver, Richard' [mailto:rweaver@comscore.com], Ronan Heffernan [mailto:ronan.heffernan@nielsen.com], Berkower, Elise [mailto:elise.berkower@nielsen.com], George.Pappachen@kantar.com [mailto:George.Pappachen@kantar.com], 'Adam Phillips' [mailto:adam.phillips@realresearch.co.uk], Israel, Susan [mailto:Susan_Israel@Comcast.com]
Sent: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 04:56:37 +0100
Subject: Re: ISSUE-25 on the agenda for the October 02 call

          
  
  
Kathy,  

    
I apologize that I missed the call today and wasn't able to participate in the discussion, but I do have a question about the last point that Ed raised below:  I understand that AMR members have a particular framework in mind, but it seems most sensible   to develop a permitted use for audience measurement that would apply to any party that wanted to engage in that practice, regardless of whether it was a member of a particular association or had a particular auditor.  Would you consider modifications to the   proposal that would make an association membership/auditing component optional but that would enable other parties to comply even if they were not eligible to or chose not to join the association?    

    
I think this comes up most significantly in the last bullet of your normative text, but there may be aspects of the non-normative text that are helpful for explanation within this group as we decide on what is the right path forward but that so specifically   describe particular companies' business models that they're less helpful in a specification.  

    
Thanks.  

    
Rob  
  

    
  

  Rob Sherman  

  Facebook | Manager,   Privacy and Public Policy  

  1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW | Suite 800 | Washington, DC 20004  

  office 202.370.5147 | mobile   202.257.3901          

      
  From: Kathy Joe <kathy@esomar.org>
  Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 7:21 AM
  To: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>, "(public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>,   "Edward W. Felten" <felten@CS.Princeton.EDU>
  Cc: David Stark <david.stark@gfk.com>, "'Weaver, Richard'" <rweaver@comscore.com>, Ronan Heffernan <ronan.heffernan@nielsen.com>,   "Berkower, Elise" <elise.berkower@nielsen.com>, "George.Pappachen@kantar.com" <George.Pappachen@kantar.com>, 'Adam   Phillips' <adam.phillips@realresearch.co.uk>, Susan Israel <Susan_Israel@Comcast.com>
  Subject: ISSUE-25 on the agenda for the October 02 call
  Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
  Resent-Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 7:23 AM
    

    
              
  
  
  

Hi there  

   

We note that ISSUE-25 is on the agenda for today and wanted to provide the group with answers to Ed Felten’s questions:  

   

http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Audience_Measurement/Open_Questions  

   

Regards  

   

Kathy Joe  

   

Ed Felton’s questions:    

  1.    What does "identifying" mean in this text?   (One might read "without identifying" as requiring that data be "de-identified" according to the definition that appears elsewhere in the spec. But if the data qualifies as de-identified then no permitted use is required here because the general safe harbor   for de-identified data already applies. Alternatively, if "identifying" means something different here, then that should be spelled out.)    

  2.    What does "unique key-coded data" mean?   Is the text about "unique key-coded data ..." meant to serve as a definition of "pseudonymized"? If so, it seems overly prescriptive, requiring one particular method that (purportedly) qualifies as pseudonymized. Alternatively, this text might be read as requiring   a particular (purported) pseudonymization method. If so, why require this particular method?    

   

Answer:   The controls regarding the census data include assigning a random number to the record and obfuscating the last three digits of the IP address. These are the current minimum requirements. Different companies may adopt further pseudonymization practices for   technical reasons and these may change with technology or with national law eg in Germany it is required that the IP address is hashed as well.    

If there is future agreement at international level on pseudonymization standards or definition, we will adhere to these if they are higher   than our standards as they become available. The census data is held securely, as is all audience research data, and deleted within the maximum time period for validation and auditing.    

   

We note that the wording is open to misinterpretation because the data is pseudonomized during processing, and then aggregated (ie de-identified   ) data is provided to clients as statistical reports. Therefore without specifying the method used for pseudonomization, alternative wording could describe a testable outcome:  

   

CURRENT TEXT:   The data collected by the third party:  

Must be pseudonymized before statistical analysis begins, such that   unique key-coded data are used to distinguish one individual from another without identifying them.    

   

NEW PROPOSAL:   The data collected by the third party:  

Must be pseudonymized before statistical analysis begins, such that   it is possible to distinguish one individual from another but the data by itself, cannot   be attributed to a specific device.    

   

Ed Felton’s question  

  3.    Why allow pseudonymization to be delayed   until "statistical analysis begins"? Why not require pseudonymization to be done promptly when data is initially collected?    

Answer:  This data first needs to be filtered on a continuous basis to detect fraudulent activity such as web bots. As the campaign progresses, you may detect   additional doubtful elements and then need to re-process the data again to check that they are removed. Once it is certain that the data is clean, it is pseudonymized before analysis.  

   

Ed Felton questions  

The "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   ..."   

   

4.    The authors appear to have a specific organization in mind. Which organization is   that, and who runs it?   

  5.       What is the rationale for giving a particular   organization control over the certification process and the ability to declare who is eligible to exercise this permitted use?    

     

  Answer:The   proposal for Issue 25 has been developed by the major global providers of AMR. This paper is intended to provide clarity about why the proposal has been written in the way it has and to help people who are not familiar with this kind of market research understand   how our industry works to protect consumers’ personal information, ensure that advertising money is spent efficiently and encourage effective competition and good innovation by media publishers. We have tried to incorporate sufficient protections in the specification   to provide reassurance to the members of W3C that this is in fact the case, but we remain willing to discuss further issues of clarification or amendment which will provide additional clarity and reassurance.  

   

  As  noted, explanations and opt-outs are currently offered by AMR providers separately and there are various self-regulatory   mechanisms already in place. The intention in Issue 25 is to provide an additional level of transparency and education for users, noting that this use case is not immediately apparent even for experts in this W3C group. We think that a common AMR explanation   and opt-out will help users understand the purpose, and ensure that this permitted use remains with the boundaries specified by the W3C standard. The body would be set up with the participating research companies as founder members with expert oversight and   all companies operating in this field are welcome to join. We remain open to moving this into the non normative section of Issue 25 and further discussion as the standard evolves in practice.  

     
  Kathy Joe,  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Director, International Standards and Public Affairs    
Atlas Arena, 5th floor    
  Hoogoorddreef 5
  1101 BA Amsterdam
  The Netherlands
  Tel: +31 20 664 2141
    

  www.esomar.org  

  ESOMAR, the World Association for Social, Opinion and Market Research, is the essential organisation for encouraging, advancing and elevating   market research worldwide.  

      
  

                      
  From: "Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation)" <mts-std@schunter.org>
  Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 5:34 PM
  To: "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
  Subject: Agenda for the October 02 call (V01)
  Resent-From: <public-tracking@w3.org>
  Resent-Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 15:34:30 +0000
    

    
  
Hi Team,
  
  
  enclosed is the first draft of an agenda for next Wednesday.
  Feedback/comments are welcome.
  
  By end of October 02, we have now concluded Phase 1 (collection of issues and publishing a working draft) and are now transitioning to Phase 2 (addressing all issues one-by-one). We start with the issues where no input will be provided anymore (5, 10, 24, 25,   ...). The documentation for new issues can still be enhanced until October 16.
  
  Re-Reminder: Note that Wednesday is the last day where new issues can be raised.....
  
  Note that we are now starting to prepare 4 issues for determining the corresponding change proposal to determine consensus.
  The goal is to identify one change proposal for each of them that emerges as consensus.  
  
  
  Regards,
  matthias
  
  ------------------------------
  
  1. Confirmation of scribe.  Volunteers welcome
  
  2. Offline-caller-identification (see end for instructions)
  
  3. Our perspective on how to shape change proposals (Carl/Matthias)
  
  4. Survey of newly raised issues if any (authors of issues)
      - If you have added an issue, I would like to learn about the new issue
        by means of its author explaining the issue and the proposed resolution
  
  ----  Processing of issues ---
  
  7.  ISSUE-10 [Justin]
         http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/10
         http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Party_Definitions
       As indicated in our plan, ISSUE-10 will now be   resolved in the coming weeks according to the plan below.
      
      On October 02, we will to issue the "call for final change proposals" (deadline: October 09).
  
  8. ISSUE-5  [Matthias]
         http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/products/5
         http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Tracking_Definition
      As indicated in our plan, this issue will now be resolved   in the coming weeks according to the plan below.
    
        On October 02, we will to issue the "call for final change proposals" (deadline: October 09).
  
  9. ISSUE-24 [Carl]
         http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/24
         http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Security
      As indicated in our plan, this   issue will now be resolved in the coming weeks according to the plan below.
  
      On October 02, we will review the current change proposals and will issue a "call for draft change proposals"
      to ensure that all draft change proposals for this issue are submitted by October 09.
  
  
  10.   ISSUE-24 [Justin]
         http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/issues/25
         http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Audience_Measurement
      As   indicated in our plan, this issue will now be resolved in the coming weeks according to the plan below.
  
      On October 02, we will review the current change proposals and will
      issue a "call for draft change proposals" to ensure that all draft change 
      proposals for this issue are submitted by October 09.
  
  -----------------------------------------
  Reminder: Generic plan to resolve each individual issue
  M0 (announcement): Initial call for change proposals; All change proposals should be drafted
  M1 (discussion): Initial change proposals have been submitted; Discussion on change proposals; Call for final list of change proposals
  M2 (discussion): List of change proposals is frozen; Discussion whether clear consensus emerges for one change proposal
  M3 (announcement): Call for objections to validate / determine consensus
  M5 (deadline): Deadline for inputs to call for objections (2 weeks after M3); Analysis starts
  M7 (announcement): Results are announced
  
  Note: Each issue requires 2 discussions in the group: One for discussing initial change proposals and one for discussing final change proposals and  
     understanding whether a consensus has emerged.
  
  ================ Infrastructure =================
  
  Zakim teleconference bridge:
  VoIP:    sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
  Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
  IRC Chat: irc.w3.org<http://irc.w3.org/>,   port 6665, #dnt
  
  OFFLINE caller identification:
  If you intend to join the phone call, you must either associate your
  phone number with your IRC username once you've joined the call
  (command: "Zakim, [ID] is [name]" e.g., "Zakim, ??P19 is schunter" in my
  case), or let Nick know your phone number ahead of time. If you are not
  comfortable with the Zakim IRC syntax for associating your phone number,
  please email your name and phone number to
  npdoty@w3.org<mailto:npdoty@w3.org>.   We want to reduce (in fact,
  eliminate) the time spent on the call identifying phone numbers. Note
  that if your number is not identified and you do not respond to
  off-the-phone reminders via IRC, you will be dropped from the call.
  
                  
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 09:52:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:19 UTC