18:17:20 RRSAgent has joined #dntd 18:17:20 logging to http://www.w3.org/2013/02/11-dntd-irc 18:17:28 vincent has joined #dntd 18:21:26 wseltzer has joined #dntd 18:23:18 wseltzer has changed the topic to: Phone: +1.617.761.6200, conference code 26634 18:23:28 zakim, this is 26634 18:23:28 wseltzer, I see Team_(dntd)18:30Z in the schedule but not yet started. Perhaps you mean "this will be 26634". 18:23:34 zakim, this will be 26634 18:23:34 ok, wseltzer; I see Team_(dntd)18:30Z scheduled to start in 7 minutes 18:24:34 dan_auerbach_ has joined #dntd 18:27:24 Team_(dntd)18:30Z has now started 18:27:31 +BerinSzoka 18:28:14 +??P6 18:28:29 zakim, ??P6 is me 18:28:29 +vincent; got it 18:28:35 fielding has joined #dntd 18:29:44 aleecia has joined #dntd 18:29:44 johnsimpson has joined #dntd 18:30:35 + +1.415.920.aaaa 18:31:18 am I in right group? 18:31:35 I was sent here though my last name puts me in C 18:31:58 this is last name with S, though right? 18:32:18 yes 18:32:26 Hard to know -- Auerback, Fielding, Doty... 18:32:54 I think Nick is in all groups 18:32:59 I was just asked to lead this section 15 minutes ago or so 18:33:07 That's a good idea -- thanks, Roy 18:33:17 +johnsimpson 18:33:40 +bryan 18:34:29 Always an adventure 18:35:04 do we have the "questions" 18:35:09 npdoty has joined #dntd 18:35:14 -bryan 18:35:39 how many actually in the room? 18:36:04 + +1.650.723.aabb 18:36:09 sidstamm has joined #dntd 18:36:13 zakim, aabb is aleecia 18:36:13 +aleecia; got it 18:37:35 +[Mozilla] 18:37:36 let us know once the room is able to connect and we'll get started 18:37:43 Zakim, Mozilla has sidstamm 18:37:43 +sidstamm; got it 18:37:54 did everyone get the list of questions? or just the group leaders? 18:38:02 i can paste them into irc 18:38:08 if others haven't seen them 18:38:11 please do 18:38:11 I see Dan, John, Sid, Vincent, Aleecia. Presumably Wendy, like Nick, here to staff 18:38:15 Haven't seen them 18:38:16 zakim, unmute me 18:38:16 johnsimpson was not muted, johnsimpson 18:38:35 testing now. anybody hear me 18:38:40 nope 18:38:45 yes 18:38:48 i hear you 18:39:04 yes 18:39:04 robsherman__ has joined #dntd 18:39:15 + +1.425.214.aacc 18:39:58 zakim, mute me 18:39:58 johnsimpson should now be muted 18:39:59 robsherman has joined #dntd 18:40:37 are there "questions"? 18:40:42 schunter has joined #DNTD 18:40:53 zakim, who is here? 18:40:53 On the phone I see BerinSzoka, vincent, +1.415.920.aaaa, johnsimpson (muted), aleecia, [Mozilla], +1.425.214.aacc 18:40:54 AdamTurkel has joined #dntD 18:40:56 [Mozilla] has sidstamm 18:40:56 On IRC I see schunter, robsherman, sidstamm, npdoty, johnsimpson, aleecia, fielding, dan_auerbach_, wseltzer, vincent, RRSAgent, Zakim 18:41:23 where are the questions for the session? 18:41:27 we can be reading meanwhile? 18:41:42 I'd like to see them too 18:41:43 :) 18:41:54 seriously? 18:42:07 paste a url? 18:42:11 Upload the doc please 18:42:19 we're trying... 18:42:37 schunter has joined #DNTD 18:42:39 bryan has joined #dntd 18:42:44 thank you Rob 18:43:10 how many in actual room? 18:43:24 1. “Lifetime browsing history” is a phrase that is often used, but never defined clearly. What would LBH mean as a technical matter? 18:43:24 18:43:24 2. In light of this definition, what technical measures would suppress or delete LBH? 18:43:24 18:43:24 3. Tying LBH to the previous group discussions of “buckets” or “low-entropy cookies,” how can the latter continue while suppressing or deleting LBH? 18:43:24 18:43:24 4. Are there any compelling use cases for retaining detailed browsing history beyond a general time limit on retention? 18:43:25 18:43:25 5. If so, how would you limit those use cases consistent with the goals of: (1) limiting LBH; while (2) enabling “buckets” or “low-entropy cookies”? 18:43:32 1. “Lifetime browsing history” is a phrase that is often used, but never defined clearly. What would LBH mean as a technical matter? 18:43:50 zakim, unmute me 18:43:50 johnsimpson should no longer be muted 18:43:55 Mike Zaneis, Rob Sherman, Bryan Sullivan, Sam Sherman 18:43:59 Adam Turkel 18:44:04 s/Sam Sherman/Sam Silberman 18:44:23 phone: John Simpson, Dan Auerbach, Aleecia MacDonald, Berin Szoka 18:44:24 q? 18:44:39 ... Sid Stamm 18:44:54 Room+: Wendy Seltzer, Mathias Schunter 18:45:05 wseltzer, I'm here as well you did not hear me? 18:45:09 Dan: going through questions high level, then will focus 18:45:13 (agreement) 18:45:34 Dan: lifetime browsing history defn -- would would LBH mean as a technical matter? 18:45:42 q? 18:45:44 Phone+ vincent Toubiana (thanks) 18:45:48 q+ 18:45:54 tlr has joined #dntd 18:45:55 ack dan_auerbach_ 18:46:10 Samsilberman has joined #dntD 18:46:21 ... If you have big table keyed with pseudonym and table has URIs and timestamps, that's what I think of as LBH 18:46:41 ... Assuming longer than short retention (1 week, 1 mo perhaps) that's my starting point for defn 18:46:52 ... use as working defn and keep going? 18:46:52 q? 18:46:53 q+ 18:46:54 q+ 18:46:59 Susan: ? 18:47:07 ack schunter 18:47:21 Matthias: too strong a requirement. Have URL and for some reason you know they came from same person, that's enough 18:47:36 ... if all articles without URLs, also LBH 18:47:54 ... all books someone has looked at, even without URIs, still LBH 18:48:04 q+ to say it means to me a set of URI data associated with an individual, compiled over a long period of time, and collected/maintained with that purpose in mind 18:48:06 Dan: any dataset known to be same person or device over time? 18:48:22 Matthias: if identifiers of books, not just URIs 18:48:25 Dan: agree 18:48:25 ack wseltzer 18:48:25 q? 18:48:45 ?: if no identifier but you know who it is? 18:48:56 s/?:/sherman:/ 18:49:02 Matthias: know it's the same person, even if not who the person is, that's a LBH 18:49:15 q+ 18:49:15 sherman: why? Why are we concerned if you cannot link? 18:49:24 Matthias: different question. We're answering what's a LBH 18:49:27 q? 18:49:28 q? 18:49:38 (cross talk) 18:49:49 q+ MikeZaneis 18:49:55 q+ Rachel 18:50:22 ATurkel has joined #dntd 18:50:27 ?: find what's alike, determine duration. An individual, to me, it says URI data with an individual whatever that is. Complied over a *long* period of time. Collected and maintained with that purpose in mind. 18:50:30 ack bryan 18:50:30 bryan, you wanted to say it means to me a set of URI data associated with an individual, compiled over a long period of time, and collected/maintained with that purpose in mind 18:50:40 s/?/bryan 18:50:44 ... something specific, not what you can do with it, but the record that is collected and maintained 18:51:13 Mike: supportive of Peter's intro, thought we have identified an issue we can agree is a consumer privacy issue that might be able to be addressed 18:51:15 The history (if not linkable to any person) seems far less critical as compared to a LBH that can be associated with a person. 18:51:16 ack Mike 18:51:38 Mike: 3rd party collection of a *long* history, not defining long yet, point being that's "tracking" 18:51:43 zakim, wh ois on the phone? 18:51:43 I don't understand your question, tlr. 18:51:49 ... what we've focused on is the 3rd party tracking 18:51:55 zakim, who is on the phone? 18:51:55 On the phone I see BerinSzoka, vincent, +1.415.920.aaaa, johnsimpson, aleecia, [Mozilla], +1.425.214.aacc 18:51:57 ... tried to come up with more transparency and control 18:51:57 [Mozilla] has sidstamm 18:52:12 I'm confused about the "for that purpose" part of the definition... what is the purpose referenced by "that"? 18:52:18 ... not interested in lifetime browsin history, but want to agree on the scope, and more interested in the other questions on the list 18:52:34 ... let's get on to the next questions unless we're not just talking about 3rd party 18:52:46 Dan?: not sure we want to get too deep, other comments? 18:52:50 +1 to moving forward to the other questions 18:52:51 q+ 18:52:57 ack wseltzer 18:52:58 q+ 18:53:00 q? 18:53:14 ack Rachel 18:53:31 ack aleecia 18:53:38 rachel_thomas has joined #dntd 18:53:45 +1 to Aleeia 18:54:04 aleecia: would include 1st parties in LBH for defn, though perhaps not what we care about under DNT 18:54:07 ack aleecia 18:54:10 BerinSzoka_ has joined #DNTD 18:54:12 ack schunter 18:54:15 +q 18:54:28 matthias: wouldn't just discuss 3rd parties, but may constrain to just 3rd parties 18:54:40 dan: purpose of the dataset shouldn't be part of the defn 18:54:43 +1 dan 18:54:52 dan: 1st or 3rd party shouldn't be part of defn 18:54:57 q? 18:55:05 dan: moving to Q2 18:55:08 In light of this definition, what technical measures would suppress or delete LBH? 18:55:11 link to the questions? 18:55:18 thanks, Matthias! 18:55:32 [2 2. In light of this definition, what technical measures would suppress or delete LBH?] 18:55:42 dan: rough idea of defn. what tech measures suppress / delete? 18:56:04 peterswire has joined #dntd 18:56:22 matthias: long series of events, can regularly suppress link ability. every fixed time you start collecting fresh, not long-term any more 18:56:32 q? 18:56:51 could someone please share the list of questions? 18:56:51 ... if you use cookies and you throw away cookies and set new ones, unless you do new things, that breaks the linkability 18:56:56 rrsagent, make record world 18:57:08 dan: hear you're changing the pseudonym 18:57:10 Regular breaking the linkability (e.g., by erasing cookies while not using any other linking-ability) 18:57:11 matthias: yes 18:57:20 dan: not enough. also storing IP address, can link 18:57:39 Not storing a dataset that can link two "subsequences" of the LBH. 18:57:41 dan: need strong notion beyond moving from one cookie to another. 18:57:45 MikeZaneis has joined #dntd 18:57:45 q? 18:57:50 q+ 18:57:52 q? 18:57:54 ack dan_auerbach_ 18:58:03 ack dan_auerbach_ 18:58:09 ack wseltzer_cpdp 18:58:21 wendy: if we have long but unid'ed history, addition of one piece of linking data could tie that back 18:58:35 ... rotating identifiers to break into shorter periods of time might be useful 18:58:42 q+ 18:58:48 dan: reasonable suggestion 18:59:02 Interesting question: re-linkability of sub-sequences. 18:59:10 ... fields that can link between records or data sets, important to look at everything, including time stamps 18:59:24 ... can correlate prior records to new ones 18:59:28 [what about fuzzing of data?] 18:59:50 ... broadly, want to look at all fields you are collecting and make sure none can correlate 19:00:01 ... can go from timestamp to a day or an hour 19:00:04 ack aleecia 19:00:22 dan: quickly through other qs then focus and make progress 19:00:41 bryan: confused about suppression 19:01:10 ... if it's impossible to correlate then you have suppression is that fair? 19:01:19 dan: yes, or make data less specific 19:01:24 If you cannot correlate two browsings that are a long time apart, then you suppressed the LBH. 19:01:31 bryan: url being one piece of the dataset, ok 19:01:53 ... different question: what is the tech that will enable decor over time is an arms race. not productive to get into details. 19:02:12 ... what we learned from HIPPA is best we've seen, don't know we'll do better 19:02:42 dan: should strive to do better. agree normative lang to specify a technique is not the way to go. but let's brainstorm 19:02:49 ... HIPPA missed the mark, we can do better 19:02:53 q+ 19:03:15 ... let's at least explore even if we don't suggest a particular thing 19:03:49 ack aleecia 19:04:45 aleecia: want to find a nice balance that can suppress while still providing a benefit for privacy and maximize monetary benefit 19:04:49 aleecia: we could just delete all URIs. presumably there are ways the data is useful for industry / profitability - how do we do that more privacy protecting? 19:04:50 BillScannell___ has joined #dntd 19:05:03 matthias: can we delete after 90 or 60 days? 19:05:19 Rob: matthias is looking at me :-) 19:05:25 ... timeline is not a LBH 19:05:39 ... can click Like button to add things to record, but one-off basis 19:05:52 ... not LBH, it's one off, and it's affirmative action from the user 19:06:09 I'm unsure of the value, in this working group and DNT context, of focusing on techniques for ensuring long-term records of data are not correlatable. That is pretty deep science for this group. I think at most we can set objectives, and let the market develop techniques that meet the objectives. 19:06:10 Matthias: affirmative action of user is important, not our concern 19:06:33 rob: if you choose to use a tool, it's out of scope 19:06:44 (bryan, thank you for adding what i didn't capture well enough) 19:07:02 - +1.425.214.aacc 19:07:03 +W3C 19:07:11 dan: not talking about bits and pieces a user affirmatively adds. this is a background thing that happens without the user's knowledge 19:07:26 (speaker phone troubles) 19:07:43 -- resolved. 19:07:59 dan: agree that the piece Rob & Matthias are talking about should go into the defn -- not a discrete set of user added items, but something automatic and regularly 19:08:14 (not sure I agree, but there is some line there) 19:08:18 zakim, W3C has Bryan, wseltzer, schunter, Mike_Zaneis, Rachel_Thomas, sherman, Adam_Turkel, Sam_Silberman 19:08:18 +Bryan, wseltzer, schunter, Mike_Zaneis, Rachel_Thomas, sherman, Adam_Turkel, Sam_Silberman; got it 19:08:42 Rob: plugins are short period of time, need for trouble shooting. Not kept more than 90 days. 19:08:49 ... then it's not identifiable form 19:09:10 Mike: attribution, analytics, targeting -- vary from short to long 19:09:25 Matthias: ad networks use for more than a year, is that normal for a campaign? 19:09:30 how long are "relatively short periods" 19:09:36 ... big data? 19:09:50 1 year: seasonal and campaigning. 19:09:57 Mike: varies. Over a year for seasonal campaigns to adjust inventory or for market research 19:10:03 ... need longer than a year 19:10:37 ... interesting discussion we can have is other ways to get the insights for an ad model but less identifiable or sorter retention 19:11:07 q? 19:11:07 ... you get wide ranges of time, and if first party even wider. Carriers will have lots of reasons to keep in identifiable format for longer. 19:11:11 q? 19:11:22 aleecia++ 19:11:39 dan: makes sense. Digression to ad world, if anyone there can help me understand 19:12:15 peterswire has joined #dntd 19:12:23 ... for behavioral targeting, can conclude interested in sports apparel. Have a URL then to several buckets, male, 30-40. 19:12:30 ... break into profiles, or use raw URL 19:12:33 q+ 19:13:08 rachel: can't speak to URL question, but isn't just you looked at a sports page. History across consumers, and over time, to reach conclusion not related to sports. 19:13:18 I think they use full URL when they do retargetting 19:13:23 ... use of crest means republican, colgate is democrat 19:13:38 q? 19:13:41 ... inferences and corrolations, even if not identifiable 19:13:52 q+ 19:14:06 I suspect that today, data is just kept to allow later re-mining with new algorithms. 19:14:36 Mike: ways data is currently used, if I were a marketer running super bowl ads, sponsor webpage for it plus TV commercial. 6 months later, want to know if someone came back to your site to get more info 19:14:47 ... would want to measure effectiveness of ad campaign 19:15:02 ... was it worth it to sponsor the site? Want to measure long term. 19:15:21 ... marketers, ad networks, would want to know which creative on that site was more effective. 19:15:40 ... immediate conversion may not be what builds longer-term brand recognition 19:15:42 q+ 19:15:52 ack aleecia 19:15:53 ... insights are valuable throughout supply chain 19:16:42 aleecia: we've heard in the past that buckets change 19:17:07 bryan_ has joined #dntd 19:17:32 ... trying to predict/mine the correlations in advance is difficult 19:17:56 q? 19:18:08 ... tradeoffs will vary from company to company; some tech to bridge the gaps 19:18:14 of course, what Aleecia just said assumes that a significant percentage of the market will not be DNT users--which, I'm not sure we can assume, given Microsoft, etc. 19:18:42 aleecia: may be able to get the bulk of the value with buckets rather than URIs, do lose time / money if you need to start data collection from scratch on a new unforeseen topic. Different companies have different costs. 19:18:52 ... may be able to sample from non-DNT users 19:19:05 John: can't we draw the inferences and get rid of the URIs? 19:19:24 Mike: don't disagree. Identifying how data is used. 19:19:30 q+ to mention retargeting 19:19:46 ... What would be impacted if group changed focus to what you're jumping ahead to. 19:20:00 ack johnsimpson 19:20:17 John: think we need to understand that. If end goal is to in fact eliminate URIs, let's think of ways to make inferences necessary 19:20:23 q? 19:20:51 Mike: not just inferences. Cost per impression moves to cost per click or cost per action. Purchase funnel and ads paid for in different way 19:21:03 ... valuable to know how an action came about 19:21:13 ... importatnt to the analytics of the internet 19:21:24 ... could carve out ad delivery and reporting 19:21:49 q+ 19:22:01 ... perhaps this new approach on "data hygiene" for URIs -- sometimes URIs are really necessary 19:22:09 ... do we carve them out or can we do better than that? 19:22:18 ... can we find a better balance? 19:22:24 q? 19:22:28 ack next 19:22:47 SamSilberman has joined #dntd 19:23:02 matthias: question on campaign measurement. Not a good use. If you do a superbowl campaign, after 90 days wouldn't be able to know if actions were impressed by this campaign or by another 19:23:02 peterswire has joined #dntd 19:23:14 ... big reaction in first 30 days, maybe long tail, but not so big 19:23:38 q+ to ask sampling? 19:23:40 Mike: good use case, but your point is you don't need it for a life time. There is a shorter effective useful life for that URI in that example 19:23:52 ... for web analytics and attribution, but maybe not for a full year 19:24:04 ... do I want to pay an ad network a year later after they run an ad? 19:24:18 Matthias: use case makes sense, but longevity of browsing history is limited. 19:24:21 ... can cut it. 19:24:37 Dan: another question, let's get into use cases for over 90 days. Maybe we can bracket that. 19:24:42 ack 19:24:44 ack schunter 19:24:48 ack next 19:24:49 vincent, you wanted to mention retargeting 19:25:04 vincent: use case where you need full URL for retargeting need exact URL 19:25:10 ... know which products viewed 19:25:18 dan: need exact URL, or the product? 19:25:26 vincent: not sure 19:25:47 matthias: is seasonal common? 19:26:01 ... if valentine's day, view flowers, will a year later remember me? 19:26:22 Mike: long time period, likely to try mother's day 19:26:29 ... depends on who's doing it 19:26:57 ... is it the website, a 3rd party, how granular do they need -- it varies. Plethora of different business models 19:27:12 Matthias: know of any long-term focus companies? 19:27:32 Mike: tried to limit to 3rd party, easier to answer. If 1st party, answer is yes. 19:27:53 ... small publisher (missed) gets 90% of traffic in November. may re-target in November. 19:28:04 ... ad networks not as much, but 1st parties do 19:28:06 Q+ 19:28:07 q+ SamSilberman 19:28:15 Matthias: 1st parties more likely to keep longer than 3rd parties 19:28:27 Mike: yes, more valuable than for 3rd parties 19:28:41 Mike: 3rd Q on low-entropy cookies, please describe? 19:28:48 Dan: different issue 19:29:02 ... keep them separate 19:29:08 ... move to client-side solutions 19:29:21 ... browser stores user info and selectively doles that out to advertisers 19:29:30 ... browser makes decisions about targetting 19:29:39 ... low-entropy cookies is a simple way to do this 19:29:57 ... instead of unique identifier, set a cookie for "sports person" on millions or thousands of users 19:30:08 ... small set of different sorts of cookies, all client side 19:30:16 ... don't need to retain it all on the server side 19:30:26 ... clinet-side will evolve over the next year or so 19:30:30 q+ 19:30:33 q- 19:30:48 mike: my publisher members will *hate* that, but thanks for the description 19:30:53 q- later 19:31:11 ack dan_auerbach_ 19:31:13 dan: example of super bowl, 6 months later, value of data drops off 19:31:28 ... assume a visit / impression is less valuable information than a click or an action 19:31:42 ... wondering relative weight of URIs for impression than click or action data 19:32:10 rob: for targeting, we don't do this and Mike just left, we should not lose sight of other use cases 19:32:20 ... might want to know if ad campaigns are performing well 19:32:39 ... might want to know looked at site after campaign ran and was due to that campaign 19:32:50 q? 19:32:54 rachel: super bowl is just a moment in time. Not the normal case. 19:33:22 peter: Q about 1st and 3rd party. 19:33:58 ... 3rd party networks have visibility across more sites. Can ask to delete data / portability from 1st parties, moving that way. Harder to do with 3rd parties users haven't seen. 19:34:00 q+ 19:34:02 ... seeing as same? 19:34:22 Dan: 3rd parties more likely to not need data as long, either, as 3rd difference 19:34:27 ack peterswire 19:34:49 ack rachel_thomas 19:35:01 Rachel: FB letting you delete is different from Amazon letting you delete purchase history, which you could not do 19:35:23 Peter: transactions and financial, but not need URI details 19:35:32 ... would be purple shirt not the green shirt 19:35:36 q? 19:35:40 q+ 19:35:41 q+ 19:35:49 q? 19:35:54 sam: long tail and first party issues 19:36:04 ... seasonal business for our customers 19:36:17 ... want to know how they got the customer in the first place 19:36:59 ack SamSilberman 19:37:00 ... how do I acquire new customers 19:37:31 Rachel: if you include browsing history with any identifier, need small business to know XYZ identifier from what source, might be more useful than who the user is. 19:37:36 cross talk 19:37:51 Rachel: still on conversation about what would be necessary for this information? 19:37:54 my regrets, I have to drop off for a while. 19:37:57 q? 19:37:58 -[Mozilla] 19:38:00 ack next 19:38:02 wseltzer_cpdp, you wanted to ask sampling? 19:38:03 sidstamm has left #dntd 19:38:07 ack wseltzer_cpdp 19:38:25 Wendy: hearing some uses, and sampling could be effective. Others where it is not. 19:38:27 q- 19:38:44 ... could sample time slices or user segments. 19:38:57 ... retargeting is specific and sampling does not work 19:39:08 dan: been blurring these. 19:39:23 q? 19:39:26 ... high level statistics v. exact URI, should keep clear 19:39:43 Rob: Peter's question, assuming LBH is across sites over time 19:39:52 Dan: not so clear to me 19:39:58 Rachel jumps in: unclear 19:40:01