Re: Audience Measurement Permitted Use (ISSUE-25)

Dear Rob,

A beta test version of the opt-out system that we proposed last year is being developed and will be launched soon.

Kathy Joe,
Director, International Standards and Public Affairs

ESOMAR, the World Association for Social, Opinion and Market Research, is the essential organisation for encouraging, advancing and elevating market research worldwide.

On 12 Sep 2014, at 20:47, Rob van Eijk <> wrote:


The current audience measurement text is not fit for purpose at all:

- Changing the text to align it with the rest of the TCM would go beyond editorial changes.

- The opt-out platform that is described in the proposal is not implemented. No timeline has been given, so after 1,5 year the audience measurement industry hasn't shown any tangible results.


Justin Brookman schreef op 2014-09-12 16:46:
> I asked ESOMAR whether they wanted to revise their proposal; they
> declined. However, I don’t think the definition of tracking changes
> anything — Audience Measurement is offered as a “permitted use”;
> permitted uses contemplate behavior that is in fact tracking, but is
> allowed nonetheless under a compliance regime as something that is
> functionally necessary to make the web work (such as fraud prevention
> and attribution).
> On Sep 12, 2014, at 7:07 AM, Rob van Eijk <> wrote:
>> Two more issues that I think need to be addressed:
>> 1. The Esomar proposal does not align with the current definition of tracking. A permitted use would allow measurement of individual users across different contexts. The porposal is from June 2013 and needs to be updated in the light of all definitions and discussions that took place since then.
>> 2. In addition, a 'no sharing' requirement should move to a generic requirement for all permitted uses (3.3.1 General Requirements for Permitted Uses).
>> Rob
>> Rob van Eijk schreef op 2014-09-12 12:42:
>>> 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.
>>> Rob
>>> 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 Wednesday, 17 September 2014 14:38:21 UTC