Thoughts on DNT
Yesterday I attended the Atlanta IAPP KnowledgeNet on DNT. The panelist were Peter Swire (
@peterpswire) and Brooks Dobbs. Peter is co-chair of the W3C working group on DNT. He is trying to find consensus amongst nearly 100 participants in the process. Up until recently, at least one point of contention was whether DNT stood for Do Not Track or Do Not Target. However, the dispute isn’t over the acronym so much as whether the meaning is to not send people targeted ads or track them as they surf the internet and compile dossier or at least gauge correlated interests of segments of the population. I would suspect that some of the confusion is related to the historical providence of the DNT initiative coming out of the wildly successful Do Not Call registry. While there are several distinction, one that must be clearly understood is the underlying privacy harm. In Do Not Call, no one is decrying marketing firms dossier building, rather it is the intrusion into the personal space of the called part that is deemed the privacy harm. Counter this to web surfing and the ubiquity of advertising on free websites. The intrusion in the personal space of the user is not the privacy harm at issue. Rather the desire by firms to almagamate information about people to create more targeted or more effective advertising (thus increasing cost effectiveness of the advertising). Before we can begin designing a solution, it’s important to identity the actual harm you’re trying to prevent.
Peter framed it rather nicely during the panel by asking two questions. The first question he asked the audience was whether they wanted to be tracked without their knowledge as they surfed the internet. Only one hand was raised and that one was in jest. The second question, to which many people myself included answered affirmatively, was whether they wanted a more personal experience on the internet. Those two questions framed the debate as a conflict between something people don’t want (tracking) and something people do want (personalization). Thought I personally haven’t engineering a system to do it, my gut reaction is that these two concepts need not be at odds. Certainly, you can design a system (as most are) where tracking support personalization but I suspect that just because it is sufficient, does not necessitate tracking.
Consider for instance a decentralized design where a person’s dossier were kept browser side. When an ad network wanted to serve an ad, the browser could request an ad targeted at sports enthusiasts who like dogs. If someone visited a website for fishing, the dossier may add that tag to the person’s dossier. An intrusive one might actually say “Hey this website wants to identify you as a fisherman.” Later, the person could modify or even wipe out their personal dossier. Family members could switch dossiers depending on who is using the browser or even individuals could maintain multiple personas (the dog loving sports enthusiast and the business professional into golfing). This would solve one problem the ad industry is struggling with which is transparency. Some ad networks may reject this idea because they won’t be able to throttle ads (not true, the browser could tell the ad network not to send some ads) or because they can’t resell their data about customers. As to the second point, just because it’s more cost effective for the business (and thus the consumer), doesn’t make it an acceptable practice. Cold calling is an effective sales technique (even with only a fraction of a percent acceptance rate) but we as a society reject it because the benefit to the consumers is not apparent. Under that argument any privacy invasive technique that saves a company money could be argued to be beneficial to the consumer no matter how privacy invasive.
Tracking clearing falls within the umbrella of a surveillance system. Many types of surveillance could bring about more cost efficiencies, but it doesn’t make them legitimate. The question is, are there other business models that bring the cost benefits of targeted advertising but don’t carry the privacy harms of tracking?
Before the W3C working group can come to the agreement, they must realize that personalization are not at odds and creative design solutions are possible. Industry must be willing to explore all technological options and fully understand the privacy risks and tradeoffs of different solutions. I’d love the opportunity to work with any ad network interested in exploring the options.