Re: Audience Measurement Permitted Use (ISSUE-25)

The precise rules for audience measurement are contained in the ESOMAR proposal.

http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Audience_Measurement#Audience_Measurement_Permitted_Use

There will be an option for no audience measurement permitted use as well.

Lee Tien from EFF has previously proposed letting companies retain protocol information for two weeks for audience measurement; I have separately reached out to him to ask whether he wants that to be included as an option as well.

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
>