Digital Discourse / Archives for do not track

Do Not Track is on Track at W3C

September 18, 2013 By

The W3C Tracking Protection Working Group announced today that it would appoint Carl Cargill, from Adobe, and Justin Brookman, from the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), to join Intel’s Matthias Schunter as co-chairs of the group’s effort to forge a multi-stakeholder consensus on creating a standard to address Tracking Protection.  The group’s standard setting activity will continue, despite the withdrawal of the Digital Advertising Alliance earlier this week, under the leadership of these three well-qualified experts.

SIIA welcomes this development.  Internet users, the industry, and policymakers here and around the world are looking for a workable standard to address Tracking Protection that can be easily and effectively implemented.  All parties share the goal of creating an effective framework to enable users to express their tracking preferences in a transparent and meaningful fashion with the understanding that these preferences will be respected by the relevant Internet participants. The continuation of this W3C process and the momentum created by the naming of additional co-chairs provide the opportunity to adopt a workable standard that is broadly acceptable to all stakeholders.

Mark MacCarthy, Vice President, Public Policy at SIIA, directs SIIA’s public policy initiatives in the areas of intellectual property enforcement, information privacy, cybersecurity, cloud computing and the promotion of educational technology. Follow Mark on Twitter at @Mark_MacCarthy

Share|
Filed Under: Policy, Policy - Privacy Tagged With: ,

SIIA Digital Policy Roundup: “Do Not Track” discussions stalled, FTC announces workshop on native advertising, SIIA Comments to FTC on E-Rate, Postal Exigency Rate Still Possible

September 18, 2013 By

“Do Not Track” Discussions Stalled, Ability to Reach Consensus Questioned
As the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and other stakeholders assess the status of discussions surrounding a browser-based “do not track” solution, the process suffered a significant setback on Tuesday when the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) announced that it is withdrawing from future participation in the W3C Tracking Protection Working Group (TPWG). In a letter to W3C CEO Jeff Jaffe, the DAA announced it will convene its own process and forum for evaluating how browser-based signals can be used meaningfully to address consumer privacy. The process reportedly will include browsers manufacturers, consumer groups, advertisers, marketers, agencies and technologists and will be a more practical use of our resources than to continue to participate at the W3C.”In response, past TPWG Chair Peter Swire expressed his agreement that the Working Group does not have a path to consensus that includes large blocs of stakeholders with views as divergent as this group. Regardless of these developments, the W3C is poised to continue the discussions, expected to make an announcement about next steps today. If broad consensus is not reached soon between the divergent stakeholders, it’s likely that members of Congress and the FTC will resume the push for a regulatory approach.

FTC Announces Workshop on Native Advertising
On Tuesday, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it will host a workshop on December 4, 2013, to examine the practice of blending advertisements with news, entertainment, and other content in digital media, referred to as “native advertising” or “sponsored content.” In the announcement, the FTC noted that “increasingly, advertisements that more closely resemble the content in which they are embedded are replacing banner advertisements – graphical images that typically are rectangular in shape – on publishers’ websites and mobile applications. The workshop will bring together publishing and advertising industry representatives, consumer advocates, academics, and government regulators to explore changes in how paid messages are presented to consumers and consumers’ recognition and understanding of these messages.

SIIA’s Comments to FCC Identify 10 Steps for Enhancing the E-Rate Program
In comments submitted Monday to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) proposal to modernize the E-rate Program for schools and libraries, SIIA strongly supported the Commission’s effort to review, modernize and enhance the program and made 10 recommendations. The E-rate program provides schools and libraries with discounts off advanced telecommunications and information services in order to ensure their affordable access. At the core of SIIA’s objectives, robust Internet access through high-speed broadband connectivity is critical to a 21st century education system, and to providing educators and students with access to technology-based tools and resources that are mission critical for teaching and learning in today’s digital age. For more information or to access the comments, visit our Digital Discourse Blog.

Postal Board Defers, but Rate Increases Still Possibly on Horizon
On September 5th the Postal Board of Governors met to consider rate increases, including a possible exigent rate increase on periodicals. The Board deferred a decision on the exigent rate increase until at least its next meeting which is scheduled for next week, September 24th and 25th. Meanwhile, SIIA recently met with members of the Postal Regulatory Commission and congressional leaders on this issue to discuss our concerns with the possible exigent rate increase, as well as other matters potentially impacting our members. While there are a number of moving parts to this discussion, SIIA is continuing to monitor developments related to a possible exigent rate increase and remains engaged with policymakers.As of right now, we continue to believe a potential rate increase of 7-10% is a possibility with a likely exigent filing by USPS and negative rate provisions in the Senate version of postal reform legislation. At this point we expect a CPI increase of approximately 1.8% will go into effect in January.

David LeDuc is Senior Director, Public Policy at SIIA. He focuses on e-commerce, privacy, cyber security, cloud computing, open standards, e-government and information policy. Follow the SIIA public policy team on Twitter at @SIIAPubPolicy.

Share|
Filed Under: Digital Policy Roundup, Policy Tagged With: , ,

Do Not Track: Time for DAA to Move Forward

October 2, 2012 By

It is increasingly likely that the W3C process for Do Not Track will reach an impasse.  In a recent note to Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz several consumer groups described their sense that the process is deadlocked, and asked the Chairman to intervene.  FTC officials are usually at the discussion, which are set to resume in Amsterdam this week, but in his letter to Congress last week Chairman Leibowitz made it clear that it is the private sector group not the government that will adopt any Do Not Track standard.  Even with more direct FTC intervention, however, it is unlikely that parties will act contrary to their perceived fundamental interests.

The key disagreement is an understanding of what the Do Not Track flag means and what actions users can expect from websites and service providers if they turn it on.  Without this, the Do Not Track standard is incompletely specified, and provides less than comprehensive guidance for browser providers, websites and their service providers, and the general public.

If the W3C cannot reach a common understanding, perhaps the industry can.  The Digital Advertising Alliance has been looking at this issue for some time.  Indeed, back in February it indicated to the White House that it was going to address it:

“…the DAA intends to begin work immediately with browser providers to develop the consistent language across browsers regarding the browser based header signal uniform consumer choice mechanism that is simple to use and in a clear manner that describes to consumers the effect of exercising such choice.”

Mozilla proposed an easy-to-understand focused definition of Do Not Track back at the beginning of 2011:  “Tracking is the accumulation and use of a profile by advertising networks through invisible or subtle noting of which sites an individual visits, and the use of the profile data to customize advertisements displayed.”  Or, more succinctly, DNT means “a way for people to opt-out of online behavioral advertising (OBA).”

These definitions make sense.  They focus on the issue that appears to be of most concern to the public and policymakers: cross-site tracking for the purpose of advertising profiling and targeting.  We need to give consumers another mechanism to say no to OBA if they wish.  Of course, the DAA definition should incorporate the current W3C consensus that DNT “on” imposes no obligation on first parties, except that first parties may not help third parties circumvent DNT.

Other uses of tracking should be permitted.  For example, if a website is doing standard analytics, such as keeping track of where their visitors come from and where they go, market research, product debugging and improvements, investigating possible fraud or intellectual property violations or security risks.

DAA is doing great work on OBA. Its AdChoices program already gives consumers a cookie-based mechanism to opt out of OBA.  With DNT, DAA can do the industry and the public a service by bridging the browser DNT flag with the existing AdChoices program.

Customers should be told clearly that they can decline online behavioral advertising and how to do it.  DAA is in a unique position to move forward and break the logjam that is threatening to derail the promising initiative that is DNT.

Mark MacCarthy, Vice President, Public Policy at SIIA, directs SIIA’s public policy initiatives in the areas of intellectual property enforcement, information privacy, cybersecurity, cloud computing and the promotion of educational technology. Follow the SIIA Public Policy team on Twitter at @SIIAPolicy

Share|
Filed Under: Policy, Policy - Privacy Tagged With: , ,

Do Not Track is at a Crossroad

September 17, 2012 By

The New York Times weekend piece on Do Not Track revived the debate on what the industry should do when users’ online privacy choices are made for them. Our view is that the choice should be left to the user, and not imposed by any platform or service provider. Last week, Google announced that it would make available this user-controlled feature in its Chrome browsers by the end of the year.

In June Microsoft disrupted the industry discussions about how to provide a workable mechanism to empower users to make choices about online privacy and personalization. It announced that it would turn on the Do Not Track (DNT for short) signal in Internet Explorer 10 by default. Mozilla, the maker of the competing browser, Firefox, was critical. SIIA objected. Advertisers announced that this decision ran counter to an agreement struck between the industry and the White House around opt-out as a genuine consumer choice.

Last week, Apache revealed that it will disable the DNT signals coming from Internet Explorer 10. Roy Fielding, an author of the DNT standard and principal scientist at Adobe Systems, wrote a patch for Apache that sets the Web server to disable DNT if the browser reaching it is Internet Explorer 10.

The message is that a unilateral action forced on users by one industry player is not a sustainable solution. We as an industry have to do it together, or not at all. If websites powered by Apache do not accept the IE10 DNT signal, it simply won’t reach critical mass. Consumers, mislead by industry announcements and superficial stories from the trade press, might think their browers are giving them privacy over personalization–but the reality will be very different.

The danger is that the collaborative effort that has been building toward real privacy protection collapses. As Peter Bight said in ArsTechnica in August,” …there’s a very real prospect that the Do Not Track header will be both widely used, and widely ignored. In this situation, it would be difficult to describe it as anything other than a failure.”

Do not track is at a crossroad. Now it is up to the industry to create a a simple, easy to use, consumer activated Do Not Track system that all parties can respect.

Mark MacCarthy, Vice President, Public Policy at SIIA, directs SIIA’s public policy initiatives in the areas of intellectual property enforcement, information privacy, cybersecurity, cloud computing and the promotion of educational technology. Follow the SIIA Public Policy team on Twitter at @SIIAPolicy

Share|
Filed Under: Policy, Policy - Privacy Tagged With: ,

Mozilla Confirms Consensus on User Choice for Behavioral Advertising

June 1, 2012 By

There is broad agreement that consumers must have a clear and easy mechanism for opting out of online tracking. And there is also broad agreement that industry self-regulation and voluntary efforts are making substantial progress in developing solutions to provide consumers with meaningful choices about collection of their data. So much so that Obama administration officials just months ago cited these efforts as an example of voluntary but enforceable best practices.

Why is there such agreement on this topic? Well, that’s because customers, businesses and policymakers alike also broadly recognize the need to preserve the economic model that has been propelling the availability of content online: effective advertising. Indeed, targeted advertising is more effective and generates substantially more value that, in turn, provides for much of the valuable content provided on the Web.

In light of the broad consensus emerging around behavioral advertising and consumer choice, it was surprising that Microsoft announced yesterday that Internet Explorer 10 in Windows 8 will have “Do Not Track” (DNT) feature on by default—a move that defies the objective to enable users to make informed decisions.

But of even greater concern, Microsoft’s decision is likely to have the opposite effect. That is, in light of the fact that there is not yet consensus among the advertising industry (including among Microsoft’s own ad networks) on how to implement settings such as this, the end result will be confusion and disappointment from consumers when this ultimately doesn’t do what it says it will do. The Microsoft blog announcing the decision was clear in admitting that a uniform, industry-wide response is still under development:

“Sending a DNT signal from a browser is only part of the process. Obviously, for DNT to be effective, it is also important that websites have a common understanding of what the consumer expects when their browser sends the DNT signal. As well as engineering the world’s most used browser, Microsoft also owns and manages a growing advertising business – including a network that provides advertising to our own and other Web properties, so we have a unique perspective into this discussion.

At the moment there is not yet an agreed definition of how to respond to a DNT signal, and we know that a uniform, industry-wide response will be the best way to provide a consistent consumer experience across the Web.”

Fortunately, in response to Microsoft’s recent decision, Mozilla announced that the user’s choice is absolutely critical on this issue, and they confirmed that it will not set the “Do Not Track” feature in its Firefox browser to turn on by default. As articulated by Mozilla:

“DNT is intended to express an individual’s choice, or preference, to not be tracked. It’s important that the signal represents a choice made by the person behind the keyboard and not the software maker, because ultimately it’s not the browser being tracked, it’s the user.”

Amen, this also reflects the consensus that has emerged within the W3C Tracking Protection that “[k]ey to that notion of expression is that it must reflect the user’s preference, not the preference of some institutional or network-imposed mechanism outside the user’s control.”

So, again, there’s broad consensus on user choice and preference. Hopefully Microsoft will come to recognize this and continue to support the consensus effort.

David LeDuc is Senior Director, Public Policy at SIIA. He focuses on e-commerce, privacy, cyber security, cloud computing, open standards, e-government and information policy.

Share|
Filed Under: Policy, Policy - Privacy Tagged With:

Do Not Track and Consumer Choice

June 1, 2012 By

Yesterday, Microsoft announced that that the latest version of its Windows 8 operating system has an Internet browser that has the “do not track” feature turned on as the default. This might seem like just a business choice, and one that is pro-privacy as well. But it’s not. This unilateral action will set back the cause of industry self-regulation, produce considerable consumer confusion and delay the introduction of an effective “do not track” feature.

The essential problem is that a “do not track” flag works only with the cooperation of websites and ad networks. If they do not honor the “do not track” setting in the consumer’s browser, the consumer will be tracked. But the industry has announced that they will cooperate with a “do not track” request only if it is an opt-in choice from the consumer himself, not a choice made on his behalf by a platform provider. If they stick to this position, the new “do not track” feature described in today’s announcement won’t in fact stop tracking.

And here’s where the consumer confusion comes in. Some reports say flatly “…when browsing on PCs and mobile devices featuring Windows 8, a user automatically won’t be tracked on the Web.” Well, that’s wrong, but most users will believe what they read and think they have successfully turned off advertising tracking by using the latest Windows operating system. It will take months to unwind this consumer confusion.

But why would the industry refuse to honor a consumer “do not track” request? Targeted ads are more effective and more valuable than regular ads. If regular ads replace all or most of the targeted ones, ad revenue declines dramatically. And the content that depends on ad revenue declines as well.

If ad networks and websites honored “do not track” requests that are on by default, they would be accepting a dramatic decline in their revenue. People rarely change a default setting unless they really care about something. Getting regular ads instead of targeted ones is not so intrusive, annoying or disturbing that people will go out of their way to change things. So if the default is set at “do not track” it will stay there.

Is that the right way to structure the consumer choice? No. Arranging the choice that way threatens the economic basis for Internet content for no good reason.

When people care about something, they will act, as they did in response to the FTC’s Do Not Call rule. That rule required consumers to affirmatively call or email the FTC to ask to be put on a Do Not Call list. Three quarters of all Americans have signed up for the registry accounting for over 200 million phone numbers. When they want something, people will take affirmative action to get it.

But it makes sense to see if they really want it, rather than making the decision for them. When the economic basis of Internet content is at risk this is the only sensible choice. Put “do not track” on the same track as Do Not Call – make it opt-in.

The way forward is for the industry to coalesce around an opt-in “do not track” mechanism. The advertising industry has already agreed to cooperate with that. The details have to be worked out, but the right direction is clear. Today’s announcement means that it will take longer for the industry to come to a real agreement on the topic. It is a detour that will only delay the arrival of an effective “do not track” mechanism.

Mark MacCarthy, Vice President, Public Policy at SIIA, directs SIIA’s public policy initiatives in the areas of intellectual property enforcement, information privacy, cybersecurity, cloud computing and the promotion of educational technology.

Share|
Filed Under: Policy, Policy - Privacy Tagged With: