I could be wrong.

I don’t think the current complaint has anything to do with P3P and the “red eye”, at least for now. That is, unless you’re not offering up an honest P3P compact — telling the reader you’re ** not ** tying anonymous and known data together, when you really are. Then I would offer that there is some problem.

Thanks for writing!

Can you name the last site you were at that popped up a window that said “This site uses tracking methods … to enhance your experience … please click here or contact…”

I’ve never seen that, and I’ve been online for awhile. I think the fundamental issue is that sites, perhaps many sites, ** are ** integrating anonymous data with known customer data. But I have to just believe that those sites would much prefer to ** not ** have to pop up the window you describe, not because they don’t want their visitors/customers to know, but because of the degradation in the user experience, the potential for backlash, the potential for mis-interpretation, etc.

And I do agree with you that the WAA should not take a dismissive or contrary stance. I’m just saying that they should ** take a stance ** and offer an opinion so that we as an industry don’t appear mute on the subject.

Anyway, great comment and thanks for reading!

True, you can still enter a store and not be tracked, but, for Pete’s sake, the data usage by credit card companies has been way more intrusive from a privacy standpoint for many years now. Last time I checked, the average American household had 7 of them.

So, of course privacy is important; no one is against virtue. What also scares me as a Canadian is that this would be yet another US legislation that would have a big impact on the rest of the planet. Would that law apply on US sites only (probably)? what if the visitor is not a US citizen? what if a US citizen visits a non-US site?

I am certainly biased, since I have been making a living in WA for several years. But I am convinced that this thing has more to do with, dare I say, some bigotry similar to what we see with smoking (note: I myself never smoked), while people relinquish much more very personal information everyday just for the fun of owning something they can’t afford.

Well, I guess it’s time Jim and Bryan at the WAA make a move!

Jacques Warren

say i use web analytics for “strategy” and “operations” and not at all “marketing,” then do I worry?

what’s the impact of P3P on all this?

will IE users start to notice the “red eye?”

At worst, on entry to a site, have a JS popup, or similar, put up a small window “This site uses tracking methods … to enhance your experience … please click here or contact…”

As far as I could tell they weren’t asking to stop the collection and so on. Rather, making it more obvious that collection is happening.

How is this any different to the almost countless warning security messages when using MSIE? People switch off to them after a while, and it becomes the norm. Unfortunately.

What surprised me personally was how… “Is that *ALL*????” the Request was. 47 pages of The Sky Is Falling. 3 pages of: But hey, all we ask for is XYZ.

Not that anyone would or should, but if you asked me: I’d be suggesting that the WAA jump in and agree wholeheartedly with the Request and actually work with those groups to address and solve their major concerns.
IMHO one of the worst things the WAA could do is take a contrary or dismissive stance.

my 2c.
Steve

As a wise man once said, when dropping small pebble in still pond, watch for big ripples….

Kudos for spotting this and recognising its significance - many thanks for your analysis as well. This is exactly the kind of thing that we all feared happening. The scariest thing I think is the lack of clear thinking in the petition:

“Over the next few years, as the distinctions between online and “old” media blur still further, there will be a ubiquitous interactive environment. So, too, in this fluid, new environment, with all manner of data compiled and analyzed, will the distinction between anonymous and personally identifiable information disappear.”

This is extremely woolly thinking. If we can assert that “the distinction between anonymous and personally identifiable information” will *not* disappear - the two will always and by their very definition be recognisably distinct - then we can move on to a method for reassuring the public of this.

IMHO there are two approaches we should be considering here - the ol’ carrot and stick, if you will. If we (the analytics industry) can be proactive in responding to the concerns in the petition by coming up with our own Code of Conduct that states explicitly the parameters which limit data collection then we have an effective ‘carrot’. And I believe the key element here is personally identifiable information. This is the limit beyond which analytics should not tread without the permission of the user. It’s a simple rule (admittedly with complex repercussions) and as such it can be communicated to the average internet user simply and understandably.

The ’stick’ is to point out that advertising is currently paying for the internet (sweeping statement I know) and the reason is because of the accountability and the call and response of online marketing. If you want to take away the ability to serve up increasingly relevant and targeted data then the benefits of online advertising over traditional media will disappear. All we’ll have then is spam, spam and more spam choking the life and the user experience out of the web.

The question is what to do now? The WAA would certainly seem to be the right people to mount a counter-offensive; a workable, self-administered solution that all vendors & analytics users would be prepared to abide by. But maybe I’m just a naive old idealist.

Jim Newsome
_____________________________________
http://www.ga-experts.co.uk?utm_id=10