Re: Audience Measurement Permitted Use (ISSUE-25)

Dear All,

I am resending this in case it was not received

Regards

Kathy

On 24 Sep 2014, at 17:56, Kathy Joe <kathy@esomar.org> wrote:

Dear Rob, 

Thanks for your questions.

Audience measurement, as described in Issue 25, is a very specific branch of market, social and opinion research.

An audience is the estimated proportion of a defined population exposed to specific content.

The data points described are those included in the Issue 25 submission and for further details and explanation I refer you back to the Q&As provided in July of last year.

 23_July_2013_W3C_answers.docx

Regards

Kathy Joe.


From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
To: Kathy Joe [mailto:kathy@esomar.org]
Sent: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:00:57 +0100
Subject: Re: Audience Measurement Permitted Use (ISSUE-25)


Dear Kathy,

You carefully describe the datapoints as 'content accessed by a device' 
and refer to 'specific content'. This triggers the following two 
questions: (1) Are market, social and opinion research forms of audience 
measurement? (2) Could you please define audience?

Regards,
Rob


Kathy Joe schreef op 2014-09-23 16:05:
> 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 user’s 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
> users’ 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 <rob@blaeu.com> 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 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 <rob@blaeu.com> 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
>> www.esomar.org [1] [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 <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
>> 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
>> www.democraticmedia.org [2] [2] [4]
>> www.digitalads.org [3] [3] [5]
>> 202-986-2220
>> On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Kathy Joe <kathy@esomar.org> 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
>> <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
>> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> 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 [mailto:kathy@esomar.org]
>> Sent: 17 September 2014 15:38
>> To: rob@blaeu.com
>> 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 <rob@blaeu.com> 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 <rob@blaeu.com> 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.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Audience_Measurement#Audience_Measurement_Permitted_Use
> [4]
> 
>> [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 <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
>>> Links:
>>> - ------
>>> [1]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Audience_Measurement#Audience_Measurement_Permitted_Use
> 
>>> [1]
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (MingW32)
>>> Comment: Using gpg4o v3.3.26.5094 - http://www.gpg4o.com/ [2]
>>> Charset: utf-8
>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUGZ5CAAoJEHMxUy4uXm2JNLQIAJb5uI3Cd9eZ95K2a2a9y2pN
>>> 78kRLIKmDIkqUgv/4heckvz9RP2aU5nc0ft4+STeqtUktkVaEgJRIE34/2ASspSU
>>> nb/Gy0aihBcLqX3amCdFMgJNqvwVJkOksOrQwdNfWFd718wHV3wgQJvGHzVDQzb8
>>> ZCIq3N5OCd3r2lCodxXc0EvaZKLBhBFkJBlnDKpwycjDWTJWoF4PvyaLjdrGkXRW
>>> eRBGaGl2bunvrUqhePj3/LFmYWa/biigRZRjSHuQZemK8Pgmcb1Gj/jv7Nh3S+rg
>>> HmNPpMNi7MjnR2TtShQlxhitODShWdnomhGWPIi71rvTkZicTjxcjfJLKZgCnqI=
>>> =BVc1
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> <PGPexch.htm><PGPexch.htm.sig>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Audience_Measurement#Audience_Measurement_Permitted_Use
> 
>> [2] http://www.gpg4o.com/
>> [3] http://www.esomar.org/
>> [4] http://www.democraticmedia.org/
>> [5] http://www.digitalads.org/
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.esomar.org
> [2] http://www.democraticmedia.org
> [3] http://www.digitalads.org
> [4]
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Audience_Measurement#Audience_Measurement_Permitted_Use
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.esomar.org
> [2] http://www.democraticmedia.org
> [3] http://www.digitalads.org
> [4]
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/Change_Proposal_Audience_Measurement#Audience_Measurement_Permitted_Use