Re: Audience Measurement Permitted Use (ISSUE-25)


You are of course, entitled to your opinion, but we would ask the W3C to concentrate on the facts, which are.

- audience measurement was agreed to be considered as a permitted use more than 15 months ago;

- the system being developed is an industry-wide platform that requires multiple inputs (in much the same way as this committee), and thus takes time to finalise;

- the opinions now being put forward appear to be hostile to any and all self-regulatory efforts, without any cognisance of the track record of the audience measurement industry, and therefore

- we would respectfully request that the W3C act responsibly to allow the numerous franchises to agree an outcome that will satisfy a large number of stakeholders, which are acting in good faith and are dealing with a range of different jurisdictions and evolving laws.

The last thing we would wish to see is that the singular opinion(s) of any purported democratic organisation be deployed in such a way as to stifle a constructive, open exchange, or the search for viable industry solutions.



On 23 Sep 2014, at 16:19, Jeffrey Chester <> wrote:

I cannot understand why WC3 is permitting this proposed permitted use to move forward, given that it isnít even developed yet.  Is the organization asking that people who are working to protect privacy endorse a system sight unseen?   The Esomar project is clearly only in the developmental stage,  and is not even available for outside objective review.  

The WC3 should act more responsibly here by requiring the Esomar project to undergo a prior outside independent analysis before it is submitted to this group.



Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009

On Sep 23, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Kathy Joe <> wrote:

> Dear Rob,
> It would not be helpful to list the different technologies used/not used by the various companies as detailed specifics may vary slightly between each company and technologies will also change. 
> However, we repeat that audience measurement, as described in our submission for a permitted use, tracks the content accessed by a device rather than involving the collection of a userís browser history. ie audience measurement is centered around specific content, not around a user, and results are released as aggregated statistics. 
> We also wish underline that the platform is still being developed, and the objective is to enable users to opt out from data linked to their device being collected for audience measurement and to respect usersí choices.
> It is not designed as an elaborate method to work around or to deceive users, which would be counter-productive for this initiative. 
> With best regards
> Kathy
> On 19 Sep 2014, at 11:08, Rob van Eijk <> wrote:
> Dear Kathy,
> two follow up questions:
> 1. Could you please be more specific? "Similar technologies" indicates a broad range, of which some are far from transparent to the user. What other technologies are used besides cookies? Is JavaScripting used? Is JavaScripting used to derive a fingerpring? Is passive fingerprinting used? Please provide a complete list such that we can weigh the chosen technologies againgst user transparency.
> 2. What does the Esopmar opt-out mean: (a) deleting any data right at the point of collection, or (b) using the data in the analysis and subsequent stages? Please inform the group such that we can weigh the chosen technologies against user control.
> Rob
> Kathy Joe schreef op 2014-09-19 10:50:
>> 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 sectorís 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,
>> Rob
>> 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
>>> [1] [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
>>> [2] [4]
>>> [3] [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 donít think the definition of tracking
>>>> changes
>>>> anything ó Audience Measurement is offered as a ďpermitted
>>>> useĒ;
>>>> 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.
>>> [4]
>>>> [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]
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>> 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]
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> [3]
>> [4]

Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2014 15:59:50 UTC