Re: Audience Measurement Permitted Use (ISSUE-25)

Dear Justin,

The Esomar proposal does not align with where we are with the term 
permanently deidentified and uses confusing terms as pseudonymised and 
de-identified and de-identification. The proposal needs to be updated in 
the light of the outcome of ISSUE-188 before moving forward.


Justin Brookman schreef op 2014-09-11 20:26:
> The precise rules for audience measurement are contained in the ESOMAR
> proposal.
> [1]
> 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 <> 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 []
>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:34 AM
>> To:
>> 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
> Links:
> ------
> [1]

Received on Friday, 12 September 2014 10:43:04 UTC