RE: Remove profiling prohibition for frequency capping (ISSUE-236)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

You are not off base, but it shows up the transparency/machine visibility issue. If a third-party uses a cookie (or gets a 1st party cookies placed and uses that) to recognise the user in multiple transactions for in-context frequency counting how can the UA/extension/regulator/user tell if tracking is going on? They would have to rely on trust that "administrative procedures" or tunnel vision glasses were being used.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David (Standards) Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com]
> Sent: 11 September 2014 17:12
> To: Justin Brookman
> Cc: Jeffrey Chester; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: Remove profiling prohibition for frequency capping (ISSUE-236)
> 
> Unless I misunderstand the definition of tracking, we might not need a permitted
> use at all. It just works.
> 
> If an ad site remembers what ads IT has served to ME only, it’s not tracking me
> across contexts.  This is something I pointed out when I first floated ‘tunnel
> vision’ — that neither first nor third parties need special language to handle their
> interactions directly with me.
> 
> In fact, the first/third distinction is not needed in tunnel vision, as I see it.  I think
> Roy may have been saying the same thing.
> 
> Now, the site may be able to remember “I served this dishwasher ad to Dave
> thrice up to now, ’tis sufficient”, but it cannot remember “it was on Sears.com
> that I first served that ad, and on HomeDepot.com the second, but lo! or the
> third I cannot recall who asked it of me”. That’s remembering data across
> contexts.
> 
> Or am I off base?
> 
> On Sep 11, 2014, at 7:15 , Justin Brookman <jbrookman@cdt.org> wrote:
> 
> > We are not reopening a discussion on whether there will be a permitted use
> for frequency capping. That has been stable in the TCS for years. Anyone who
> wanted to remove such a permitted use could have opened an issue on this at
> any time up to October of last year; no one did.
> >
> > This issue raised by Jack is an editorial one. The frequency capping rules are
> already subject to the Data Minimization and No Personalization language in
> Sections 3.3.1.3 and 3.3.1.4; Jack has made the argument that the last sentence
> in the frequency capping paragraph is thus superfluous.
> >
> > Companies retaining data for frequency capping alone can only collect and use
> the data minimally necessary for that purpose, and cannot use that data for
> secondary purposes. There is no basis for retaining web browsing history for
> frequency capping (unless a cap is tied to showing a number of ads on a
> particular site), and companies will not be able to target ads based on the nature
> of frequently shown ads. However, keep in mind that companies are likely to
> retain web browsing history despite a DNT:1 setting for other purposes,
> including attribution and fraud prevention. Of the permitted uses, I would think
> frequency capping would be the least concerning to advocates.
> >
> > On Sep 11, 2014, at 9:58 AM, Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for reminding me that in-flight and associated ad changes are labeled
> as OBA/data driven targeting.  I believe this debate is a useful one, because
> frequency capping needs to be vetted taking into consideration EU and other
> data protection policies.
> >>
> >>
> >> 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 Sep 11, 2014, at 6:53 AM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jeff,
> >>>
> >>> We agreed as a group that any "in flight" changes were deemed behavioral
> targeting, not frequency capping, so we already removed that use case from
> consideration (such as sequential ads) at the Oct 2013 Sunnyvale meeting.  The
> use case here is the most simple one imaginable -- not showing the same user
> the same ad more than X times in a Y given time frame - nothing more.
> >>>
> >>> - Shane
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:50 AM
> >>> To: Shane M Wiley
> >>> Cc: Walter van Holst; public-tracking@w3.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Remove profiling prohibition for frequency capping (ISSUE-236)
> >>>
> >>> Walter is correct. In addition, Frequency capping is now also connected to
> real-time "in-flight" changes to targeted personalized campaigns. In-flight is ad
> biz term for such ad technique changes done during a campaign, which can also
> involve "creative versioning," that is new campaign dynamic elements that
> reflect how a person is responding. Capping connected to these and similar
> changes to a users experience should not be permitted under DNT:1
> >>>
> >>> Jeff
> >>>
> >>> Jeff Chester
> >>> Center for Digital Democracy
> >>> Washington DC
> >>> www.democraticmedia.org
> >>> Jeff@democraticmedia.org
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 11, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Walter,
> >>>>
> >>>> Then we disagree on the merits here.  Removing frequency-capping will
> have fairly negative repercussions on users seeing the same ads over-and-over-
> and-over driving them to turn off DNT.  The group on both sides agreed to this
> carve-out long ago due to the perverse disincentives created in this scenario (I
> believe only 2 or 3 people out of ~70 ever had an issue here).  Your technical
> solution is simply unworkable.  Looking forward to the Call for Objections.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Shane
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl]
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:30 AM
> >>>> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: Remove profiling prohibition for frequency capping
> >>>> (ISSUE-236)
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 2014-09-11 12:18, Shane M Wiley wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We've always agreed the frequency-capping would be a permitted use in
> >>>>> situations where a DNT=1 is received.  Are you suggesting we now
> >>>>> remove that permitted use or are you simply commenting on this
> >>>>> specific language?
> >>>>
> >>>> I am perfectly fine with frequency-capping, as long as it doesn't
> >>>> require profiling at an individual level. It cannot result in
> >>>> collection of data by a third-party if the UA is setting a DNT:1 flag.
> >>>> The mere fact that this particular purpose of tracking is beneficial
> >>>> both to the user and the advertiser does not justify in itself an
> >>>> override of a
> >>>> DNT:1 preference. And I can think of several methods to prevent
> saturation of a particular user with a particular ad, for example progressively
> dropping least-significant bits of IP-addresses to mask out groups of users that
> an ad should not be shown to.
> >>>>
> >>>> I do not recall a broad consensus about this particular permitted use.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Walter
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
Comment: Using gpg4o v3.3.26.5094 - http://www.gpg4o.com/
Charset: utf-8

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUEczlAAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JAj8H/iS1ghWCQ4m+THOdwLFK6mYo
4ChiHzhokfWid9nBxWaOXYDSUMCrIatrT0ug+ilCJUPDr8kTVcdPdsqEYQjlvm0h
6MJ4qB9hbCMbr/DOSdr0eXIFjfrzw3tcaMpaqT6uVzYIrxebwJC5vh5bN5AxIjWv
9YayL1BBjpVITiCLMFxQ9IqWmYbiOvfgwlmj42jh3TG8lNUXJgy2Lx2WyW4Eb9yg
lXFWuDMgutg+Z+2DgNTAhQsw2quIGYK47TdUx86ydPZFHsxOtuZ2/6mPEObioeVY
c3V5bcXYLueEwxE0DMvak3nzWXu82fIy7atANAGdYoIWmW5IKsuBY7PZjG38TOI=
=b/zN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 16:26:45 UTC