Re: TPWG Charter; urge it remain

EFF has been unengaged in the WG for a few years now, because we didn’t think there was enough interest in DNT by all stakeholders, so we developed our own tool (Privacy Badger) that is consistent with our principles.

As a result, we aren’t up to speed on the EU developments that Rob refers to—but we certainly aren’t in a position to disagree with Rob’s sense that this is an important moment.

We’re also not up to speed on DNT adoption, but again, we’re in no position to disagree with Craig’s sense that DNT adoption is up—which I think he attributes to ad blocker popularity.  One recent blog post from a MoFo attorney says:

"The use of ad-blocking technologies by consumers grew by 41 percent over the past 12 months; there are now nearly 200 million active users of such technologies worldwide. In the United States, an estimated 45 million Americans are surfing an ad-free version of the Internet.

The use of ad blockers cost publishers an estimated $22 billion in 2015. That’s because each Internet user is worth an estimated $215 a year in revenue from online ads, and—as heavy Internet users—people who use ad blockers are likely worth even more.

Moreover, the situation is growing worse, as more people embrace ad-blocking technologies; the damage inflicted this year is expected to be over $41 billion.

Nor do consumers seem concerned by the threat that ad blockers pose to the Internet ecosystem; according to one survey, a mere two percent of Web surfers expressed a willingness to pay for ad-free access to online content.”

http://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2016/05/23/will-ad-blockers-kill-online-publishing/

I have no idea if these stats are correct.

I also do not understand the present status of ad-blocking under EU law (I know there was a recent decision but don’t know what it said).

But our position is that these two points—that the EU is in a transition, and that ad-blocking is increasing industry interest in DNT—if valid, could well justify continued work by the WG.  Curious what others think.

Thanks,
Lee


> On Jul 15, 2016, at 11:58 AM, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Wendy, Matthias
> 
> As expressed in a previous email, I support extending the charter. The ePrivacy Directive is currently under review. New legislation will repeal the current cookie framework, possibly with a Regulation (which will level the playing field and be in conjuction with the GDPR). See, e.g., http://ssrn.com/abstract=2804720 for a recap of the EU privacy framework.
> 
> DNT is an attempt towards a careful balance between a justified business need, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject. The (full) JavaScript consent API is a key component for this delicate balance.
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> Craig Spiezle schreef op 2016-07-15 20:32:
>> The Online Trust Alliance agrees.  To this point we are seeing an
>> update in adoption and if we walk away today, we risk sending the
>> wrong message.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org]
>> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 10:51 AM
>> To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
>> Cc: Matthias Schunter <mts-std@schunter.org>; public-tracking@w3.org
>> (public-tracking@w3.org) <public-tracking@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: TPWG Charter; urge it remain
>> CDD urges W3C to keep this group’s status active.  It is critically
>> important, given the changes to the market we are seeing in both N.
>> America and Europe especially, that W3C's Do Not Track initiative is
>> ongoing during this period.  The Charter should be renewed; otherwise
>> privacy and the public lose out.
>> Thank you,
>> Jeff Chester
>> Executive Director
>> Center for Digital Democracy
>> Washington, DC.
>> www. democraticmedia.org
>> jeff@democraticmedia.org
>> 202-494-7100
>>> On Jul 15, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote:
>>> Hi TPWG participants,
>>> Seeing limited conversation here, and no input from adopters of the
>>> technology, I lean toward not rechartering the group at this time,
>>> while continuing to track implementation and adoption.
>>> We can keep using the public-tracking mailing list and wikis, under
>>> the auspices of the Privacy Interest Group (PING, join for broader
>>> discussion, if you like, at https://www.w3.org/Privacy/).
>>> The CR documents we published will of course remain available for
>>> reference, implementation, and use:
>>> TPE: https://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-dnt/
>>> TCS: https://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-compliance/
>>> If interest in DNT picks up, we can reopen the Working Group to
>>> complete the interop testing and editing necessary to take the specs
>>> forward to Recommendation.
>>> How does that sound?
>>> --Wendy
>>> On 07/01/2016 07:39 AM, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>> thanks for the positive responses. It is a good point that people who
>>>> want to implement DNT better get guidance to do so in an interoperable way.
>>>> I would also like to hear the opposite opinions: Are there objections
>>>> to extending the charter and finalizing the documents?
>>>> Is there a downside to extending the charter, reviewing
>>>> implementations, and publishing a final recommendation?
>>>> Regards,
>>>> matthias
>>>> Am 01.07.2016 00:10, schrieb Craig Spiezle:
>>>>> I third it.  As noted we are seeing an uptake of sites disclosing if they Honor DNT and a renewed interest among publishers.   Honoring Do Not track is much suddenly become more attractive then Ad blockers.
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 11:14 AM
>>>>> To: Mike O'Neill <michael.oneill@baycloud.com>
>>>>> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org; 'Wendy Seltzer' <wseltzer@w3.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: TPWG Charter
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> I second a request to extend the charter. Now that implementers and testers have picked up DNT, it is time to further explore use cases that we may have overlooked.
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Rob van Eijk
>>>>> Mike O'Neill schreef op 2016-06-30 19:57:
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>> With the tightening of the requirement for consent, the right to
>>>>>> object, right to amend/modify/erase driven by the GDPR in Europe
>>>>>> and the (initially Transatlantic) PrivacyShield, makes it advisable
>>>>>> that the charter for this group be extended for at least another
>>>>>> year. The building-blocks in the TPE, for example the Tracking
>>>>>> Status Resource, support many of these requirements, and can
>>>>>> clearly be enhanced to support the others, and this WG is the
>>>>>> obvious place where these can be discussed and hopefully standardised.
>>>>>> The rising popularity of Ad Blockers and other Content Blocking
>>>>>> applications, which can be destructive in the way they arbitrarily
>>>>>> inhibit aspects of the web platform, also point to the need for
>>>>>> protocol elements that can communicate user preferences, and the
>>>>>> TPE or something similar to it would help with this.
>>>>>> The TPE has been implemented on several clients and servers as
>>>>>> described in the Implementation Report
>>>>>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Privacy/TPWG/TPE_Implementation_Report
>>>>>> The Tracking Exception API has been supported natively and in user
>>>>>> agent extensions, and has been supported by thousands of sites,
>>>>>> including those run by major consumer brand companies, in most
>>>>>> European countries since 2013. A number of these sites are
>>>>>> extending their support for the TPE protocol elements in the near future.
>>>>>> I hope the W3C recognises this and extends the group charter for
>>>>>> another year.
>>>>>> Mike O'Neill
>>>>>> Technical Director
>>>>>> Baycloud Systems
>>>>>> Oxford Centre for Innovation
>>>>>> New Road
>>>>>> Oxford
>>>>>> OX1 1BY
>>>>>> Tel. 01865 735619
>>>>>> Fax: 01865 261401
>>> --
>>> Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office) Policy
>>> Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>> https://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
> 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 17 July 2016 22:58:37 UTC