Re: Deciding Exceptions (ISSUE-23, ISSUE-24, ISSUE-25, ISSUE-31, ISSUE-34, ISSUE-49)

I want to clarify that I do not believe the privacy case needs to be made at all.  That issue has been decided, and is reason why we are creating the DNT signal.  But I am happy to provide  you with the tyle of information we regularly give to the EU, Congress and the FTC. 

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
Washington DC
www.democraticmedia.org
Jeff@democraticmedia.org

On Feb 4, 2012, at 11:58 PM, Bryan Sullivan <blsaws@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm glad that we will try to equitably advance arguments from both
> end-goals (privacy and market enablement). That was my only concern.
> 
> I think the political need is being driven by better user awareness of Web
> usage side-effects, not just by cross-site business models. I also think
> that users are becoming more aware that the free nature of the Web is an
> illusion, and that as they better understand the barter they engage in
> with every click, they will come to appreciate and take advantage of the
> bargaining position they are in as controllers of their personal data.
> 
> On 2/2/12 6:40 AM, "Jeffrey Chester" <jeff@democraticmedia.org> wrote:
> 
>> Bryan:  I will be happy to help elucidate the user privacy case.  As you
>> know, both the FTC and EU expect the DNT standard to seriously address
>> the expansive data collection practices that have been routinized.  If
>> there wasn't such a compelling privacy concern, we all wouldn't be doing
>> this.  Indeed, I am happy to meet you half way on the discussion.  But
>> its the current business model that has created the political need for an
>> effective DNT, including on the mobile/location environment.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> To balance the approach, in my view any argument against exceptions must
>>> satisfy an equally rigorous test:
>>> 
>>> 1) Specifically defined. Data that is considered privacy sensitive must
>>> be
>>> clearly delineated, re collection, retention, and use. Any such data
>>> that
>>> is subsequently identified by business stakeholders as important to
>>> Business As Usual (BAU) apart from the narrow purpose of cross-site
>>> tracking, needs a privacy sensitivity explanation that is
>>> extraordinarily
>>> explicit.
>>> 
>>> 2) No blanket restrictions. We should grant or deny an exception on the
>>> merits of how it balances privacy and commerce, not solely upon a
>>> specific
>>> privacy concern.
>>>

Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 15:27:34 UTC