RE: change proposal to issue-25

As I understand it, the research companies have their own opt out today,  and have had it for some time, in the absence of a dnt standard.  The idea is not that it competes or will compete with the dnt signal, but that it may ultimately be superseded by DNT if this takes hold.  I think they just had some transparency and user choice built into their systems already.  I will leave it to Kathy to confirm this.

Susan Israel
Comcast Cable
215.286.3239
215.767.3926 mobile
917.934.1044 NY
susan_israel@comcast.com<mailto:susan_israel@comcast.com>

This message and any attachments to it may contain PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT INFORMATION AND/OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT exclusively for intended recipients. Please DO NOT FORWARD OR DISTRIBUTE to anyone else. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact the sender to report the error and then delete all copies of this message from your system.



________________________________
From: John Simpson [john@consumerwatchdog.org]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 5:30 PM
To: Shane M Wiley
Cc: Jeffrey Chester; Mike O'Neill; public-tracking@w3.org; 'Justin Brookman'
Subject: Re: change proposal to issue-25

What I was trying to suggest is that my understanding of DNT is that it be a universal and persistent method of opting out of tracking as the FTC proposed in its privacy report. If in the spec you allow data to be collected when DNT:1 is sent, but require an alternative method of opting out by going to industry association website, you have undercut the universality of DNT….

I don't claim to own anything.




On Oct 7, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:

John,

No one working group member owns the “purpose of DNT” – that’s the point of the working group effort to arrive at a consensus end-point that collectively develops “the purpose”.  Artificially constraining the group to not be able to think outside of the box and be flexible to real-world situations doesn’t help advance our collective goal (at least as I understand it).

- Shane

From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org<http://consumerwatchdog.org>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 3:58 PM
To: Jeffrey Chester
Cc: Mike O'Neill; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>; 'Justin Brookman'
Subject: Re: change proposal to issue-25

In addition the proposal to have a separate opt-out mechanism undercuts the purpose of DNT.


On Oct 2, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org<mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org>> wrote:


I concur.  There has been insufficient evidence submitted on measurement as a permitted use,.


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

On Oct 2, 2013, at 6:13 PM, Mike O'Neill wrote:


Justin,

Here is my friendly amendment to Lee Tien’s change proposal for Audience Measurement.

Simply remove from the TPC Audience Measurement as a permitted use.

Justification.

It is straightforward to arrange that agreed panel members can have their user-agents override any DNT:1 general preference on requests to audience measurement servers using a web-wide UGE or with an OOBC signal. Insufficient evidence has been submitted showing why standard statistical methods extrapolating panel observations would not work, and why it would be necessary to use persistent unique identifiers on every request irrespective of someone’s preference not to be tracked.


Mike