Re: Audience Measurement Permitted Use (ISSUE-25)

I support discussing this issue, given the dimensions of programmatic/audience buying.  


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 1:41 PM, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:

> We also need to talk about the concept of audience. I feel we need to discuss what this means. At the moment, the concept means different things in different markets.
> 
> Perhaps we need a new issue to hash this out.
> 
> Rob
> 
> Rob van Eijk schreef op 2014-09-11 18:02:
>> The problem with audience measurement has been that it does not
>> provide an opt-out.
>> Add a permitted use under DNT leaves users empty handed.
>> For me a permitted use is therefore, how carefully crafted it may be,
>> at the moment a bridge too far.
>> I therefore respectfully reqeust a if we get to a CFO on this issue,
>> to include an option to NOT include a permitted use for audience
>> measurement.
>> If new arguments for strengthening the user's position exist, e.g. an
>> innovative opt-out system, please put those forward, so that we can
>> discuss these.
>> Rob
>> Shane M Wiley schreef op 2014-09-11 12:39:
>>> We should agree to disagree then as the same statement could be added
>>> to every single provision of the document.  Wasteful...
>>> - Shane
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl]
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:34 AM
>>> To: public-tracking@w3.org
>>> Subject: RE: Audience Measurement Permitted Use (ISSUE-25)
>>> On 2014-09-11 12:20, Shane M Wiley wrote:
>>>> I believe we already have a broad statement (which some believe is
>>>> unnecessary) that states nothing in the TCS is meant to contradict
>>>> local laws.  Adding another non-normative statement to this FACT is
>>>> wasteful and unnecessary.
>>> I disagree. We have such a broad statement since the group has chosen
>>> not to harmonise at the level of protection of the vast majority of
>>> the industrialised world as well since it is not feasible to check
>>> every bit of the compliance specification with every jurisdiction on
>>> the planet.
>>> Having that statement does not take away from the utility of pointing
>>> out that a specific permitted use is not a permitted use in the
>>> context of the jurisdiction of one of the largest economies when we
>>> already know it doesn't. That is not wasteful, that is helpful.
>>> Regards,
>>>  Walter
> 
>