Re: Fate-sharing for ad behavioral targeting and other forms of personalization (ISSUE-36)

Shane, where do you think the sentence should go in the pre-amble, can
you put it in context?

On 02/01/2012 03:38 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> I believe the first sentence is already covered elsewhere in the documents.  Would it be okay to simply add this statement to existing preambles?
> 
> "These requirements are not specific to behavioral advertising."
> 
> This statement doesn't do a very good job of truly expressing the balance of focus though (primarily focused on OBA/profiling across sites, but also includes other cross site data collection as well).  Perhaps not a material issue...
> 
> - Shane
> 
> From: John Simpson [mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:51 PM
> To: Tom Lowenthal
> Cc: Bryan Sullivan; Shane Wiley; Jonathan Mayer; JC Cannon; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: Fate-sharing for ad behavioral targeting and other forms of personalization (ISSUE-36)
> 
> Agree with Tom's proposed text.
> 
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Tom Lowenthal wrote:
> 
> 
> ISSUE-36 Action-63
> 
> Proposed text:
> 
> "This standard provides general requirements on data collection, use,
> and disclosure. These requirements are not specific to behavioral
> advertising."
> 
> On 01/26/2012 07:29 PM, Bryan Sullivan wrote:
> 
> I agree, either a direct statement such as suggested or
> 
> "This standard does not single out any particular use of data for special
> treatment under DNT, other than the cases of specific exemption."
> 
> 
> But I like Shane's wording better.
> 
> On 1/26/12 6:59 AM, "Shane Wiley" <wileys@yahoo-inc.com<mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com>> wrote:
> 
> Then I would suggest state just that then:
> 
> "The standard does not single out behavioral advertising for special
> treatment."
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:54 PM
> To: JC Cannon
> Cc: Shane Wiley; public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
> Subject: Re: Fate-sharing for ad behavioral targeting and other forms of
> personalization (ISSUE-36)
> 
> This text is not intended to prohibit or allow anything.  It only
> clarifies that the standard does not single out behavioral advertising
> for any special treatment.
> 
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 3:44 PM, JC Cannon wrote:
> 
> I agree with Shane. Personalization based on demographics or
> organizational membership could also be permitted.
> 
> JC
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:27 AM
> To: Jonathan Mayer
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
> Subject: RE: Fate-sharing for ad behavioral targeting and other forms
> of personalization (ISSUE-36)
> 
> I disagree with a general prohibition on any personalization based on
> DNT which the current text would suggest.  For example, geo-location or
> context.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:24 PM
> To: Shane Wiley
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
> Subject: Re: Fate-sharing for ad behavioral targeting and other forms
> of personalization (ISSUE-36)
> 
> We haven't defined tracking in the document, and I see no reason to add
> a dependency here.
> 
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> 
> Friendly amendment:
> 
> "This standard does not differentiate between personalization for
> advertisement targeting and other uses of personalization based on
> tracking."
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Mayer [mailto:jmayer@stanford.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:13 PM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org> (public-tracking@w3.org<mailto:public-tracking@w3.org>)
> Subject: Fate-sharing for ad behavioral targeting and other forms of
> personalization (ISSUE-36)
> 
> Proposed text:
> 
> "This standard does not differentiate between personalization for
> advertisement targeting and other uses of personalization."
> 
> And making this issue CLOSED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> John M. Simpson
> Consumer Advocate
> Consumer Watchdog
> 1750 Ocean Park Blvd. ,Suite 200
> Santa Monica, CA,90405
> Tel: 310-392-7041
> Cell: 310-292-1902
> www.ConsumerWatchdog.org<http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org>
> john@consumerwatchdog.org<mailto:john@consumerwatchdog.org>
> 
>