[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [pmrm] OASIS PMRM TC: Do Not Track (DNT) use case
|
A couple of newsworthy points in the last couple of days (followed by a mini-rant, be warned…):
-
Mobile ad networks are looking to use different techniques to track users after Apple's efforts to protect user privacy (Apple said last summer it would stop allowing apps to track iPhone and iPad users
as they moved from one app to another) - ad networks started using a different identifier to continue tracking user details such as location and preferences. The Federal Trade Commission recently urged Congress to create regulations on the matter. Stanford
researcher Jonathan Mayer says the situation is "emblematic of a culture problem in Silicon Valley that sees
privacy control not as a customer protection but a technical barrier to be overcome." (my emphasis)
-
‘Microsoft’s “Do Not Track” Move Angers Advertising Industry’ (http://t.co/Dds6bX74) – well there’s a surprise… Microsoft have been attacked for challenging the heart
of the advertisers’ business model – precisely that they make their money from using targeted marketing based on rich feeds of behavioural data. What strikes me about both of these examples, is that we have as much work to do as a community to get across the
policy message that “it’s about privacy, stupid” as we do to show that there are legal, decent, and
technically feasible ways of using demographic and behavioural data. We will have our work cut out to explain that what we provide is not just some knee-jerk blanket defence of user privacy, trying to put the private data genie back in the bottle – it is about a different approach
to managing privacy as managed, audited and legally bound transactions in trusted ecosystems, something that everyone should gain from. It should be seen as an intelligent alternative to the cat and mouse technology game, with the crafty mouse trying newer
and smarter encryption and detection-avoidance methods (occasionally appealing to lamakers to protect them) and the cunning cat deploying ever more sophisticated work-arounds and semantic-technology enabled pattern-matching and number-crunching to foil the
mouse. Advertisers are on a fool’s errand, if they think they can blithely continue with the business model that has served them so well (and so richly) in the past decade; users even more so if they resort to the tin-foil hats and try to simply stay off the
radar. Peter From: pmrm@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:pmrm@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Willett I previously distributed a first-pass at a DNT use case. I made the end-of-time assumption that ALL relevant technologies were in place; mainly: - all browsers allow users to set a DNT HTTP header bit - all web servers read and respond to the DNT HTTP header bit (and thus Do Not Track the user/browser) - legislation/regulation exists to require conformance But, in our recent PMRM TC telecom, it was noted that this scenario is both unrealistic and un-illuminating from a PMRM perspective. The “solution” to this distant-future scenario is simply:
User sets the DNT preference in the browser web server reads the DNT bit responds accordingly as per the regulatory conformance requirements Not very insightful. The insight provided by PMRM would be more visible with a series of scenarios in which some (or similar) supporting technologies are available in some browsers/servers.
So, I want to reformulate the Use Case with several scenarios. I am soliciting your opinion on which scenarios are pragmatic, reasonably staged, and can benefit from PMRM analysis… before I charge back into the details. See the attached table of ‘staged’ scenarios; rough, very rough. I am having trouble thinking of a natural staging of capabilities. Perhaps “staging” is the wrong model. What evolves in DNT? Soliciting your input! Thanks… Michael |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]