Re: Audience Measurement Permitted Use (ISSUE-25)

Hi Rob,

Initially it is based on cookies and similar technology although the undertaking that audience measurement must not have a detrimental impact on users is central to the sector’s codes and is technology neutral.

The objective is that the platform should be capable of being developed to also offer users choice with regard to other technologies if they become common usage in audience measurement but we will need to take this on a step-by-step basis.

Kathy Joe,
Director, International Standards and Public Affairs

On 18 Sep 2014, at 15:21, Rob van Eijk <> wrote:

Hi Kathty,

I have some follow up questions to better understand where this is heading:
1. Could you please confirm that the opt-out will be based on cookies?
2. Could you also please confirm that the opt-out will NOT be based on fingerprinting?
3. If fingerprinting is included in the technology, could you please indicate whether active or passive fingerprinting or both are used to determine an opt-out?

Kind regards,

Kathy Joe schreef op 2014-09-18 15:06:
> Hi Jeff,
> As mentioned previously, the platform and site are still under
> development (now being beta-tested), so it would be premature to
> provide a detailed description of what is said on the site or how it
> looks, as the founding participants may well still seek some final
> amendments/refinements .
> The participating companies want this to demonstrate that they fully
> understand their responsibilities to users, and the platform will thus
> include an educational/informational element, clearly describing the
> purpose of research and of audience measurement, and provide an
> easy-to-understand indication of how to opt out from the latter.
> There will be a custom solution for opt-out that will have an
> intuitive design (it would be counter-productive for this not to be
> user friendly) and the solution will be compatible with a wide
> diversity of pre-existing research company-specific opt-out systems.
> A support desk function to respond to queries, monitor and enforce
> complaints is also foreseen.
> The platform has been designed to initially cover the audience
> measurement method as described in our submission including, but not
> limited to, those developed and audited by MRC - as most countries
> have their own joint body for audience measurement.
> Kathy Joe,
> Director, International Standards and Public Affairs
> Atlas Arena, 5th floor
> Hoogoorddreef 5
> 1101 BA Amsterdam
> The Netherlands
> Tel: +31 20 664 2141
> [3]
> ESOMAR, the World Association for Social, Opinion and Market Research,
> is the essential organisation for encouraging, advancing and elevating
> market research worldwide.
> On 17 Sep 2014, at 18:14, Jeffrey Chester <>
> wrote:
> Kathy Joe: Please send to the list an explanation of the opt-out
> mechanism; whether it covers all basic industry digital measurement
> methods (such as developed by MRC, etc); and how the opt-out is being
> tested (methodology). This will help to inform our decision-making.
> Many thanks,
> Jeff
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> [4]
> [5]
> 202-986-2220
> On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Kathy Joe <> wrote:
>> Hi Mike
>> As you will have understood from our lengthy explanation of audience
>> measurement, the online ecosphere, including public bodies and
>> government broadcasters, depends on independent audience
>> measurement.
>> As we have therefore requested that audience measurement be a
>> permitted use with a distinct purpose, we want to provide
>> information to those users who are concerned, that the data is used
>> as aggregated measurement statistics and will not have a detrimental
>> impact on a user, so they can make an educated choice about opting
>> out. Kathy Joe
>> ESOMAR, the World Association for Social, Opinion and Market
>> Research, is the essential organisation for encouraging, advancing
>> and elevating market research worldwide.
>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 16:44, Mike O'Neill <>
>> wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Hi Kathy,
>> Wire not just use DNT:1? Why invent another signal when an adequate
>> alternative exists (which we have all been working on)? It is more
>> likely to get the seal of approval in EU also.
>> Mike
>> From: Kathy Joe []
>> Sent: 17 September 2014 15:38
>> To:
>> Cc: Justin Brookman; Public-tracking Working Group
>> Subject: 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:
>> Justin,
>> 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.
>> Rob
>> 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
>> proposal.
>> [1]
>> [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]
>> [1]
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using gpg4o v3.3.26.5094 - [2]
>> Charset: utf-8
>> 78kRLIKmDIkqUgv/4heckvz9RP2aU5nc0ft4+STeqtUktkVaEgJRIE34/2ASspSU
>> nb/Gy0aihBcLqX3amCdFMgJNqvwVJkOksOrQwdNfWFd718wHV3wgQJvGHzVDQzb8
>> ZCIq3N5OCd3r2lCodxXc0EvaZKLBhBFkJBlnDKpwycjDWTJWoF4PvyaLjdrGkXRW
>> eRBGaGl2bunvrUqhePj3/LFmYWa/biigRZRjSHuQZemK8Pgmcb1Gj/jv7Nh3S+rg
>> HmNPpMNi7MjnR2TtShQlxhitODShWdnomhGWPIi71rvTkZicTjxcjfJLKZgCnqI=
>> =BVc1
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> <PGPexch.htm><PGPexch.htm.sig>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> [4]
> [5]

Received on Friday, 19 September 2014 08:51:02 UTC