Release 0.91: Cookie Crumble Contest Revisited

Hi Jeff -

This is in response to Jeff Chester's comment to my previous post - where he says it is "inappropriate" for me to be involved because of my connections with the marketing world. (I'm also linked nformally to TRUSTe and to the EFF, for what it's worth.)

First, Jeff, thanks for taking the trouble to write. Here's an open-letter response:

Jeff Chester is free to - and does - disagree, but I think it makes total sense to have a marketer as *one* of the judges, just as it makes sense to have at least one consumer and one consumer advocate...and beyond that, to mix it up a little. We are not about to award a government contract that would need "objective" criteria, whatever those are. In fact, I think he is taking this all way too seriously; it's merely a light-hearted educational effort - an attempt to get people to pay attention to something about which they are mostly both ignorant and paranoid.

My *real* goal is simply to have a variety of explanations and views aired - including Jeff's! - and to encourage people to think for themselves and make their own judgments - about the videos, about the data they share, about the qualifications and biases of the judges, about the motivations of marketers and their "trusted" partners, and the motivations of self-designated consumer advocates.

Bias

Personally, I believe in disclosure of conflicts and biases. I'm biased and proud of it.

And so is everyone else. So I want people to have enough information to define and protect their own interests and understand others' interests, rather than have someone else purport to handle everything for them. Individuals have different preferences, about everything from what happens to their data, to what products they buy, what ads they click on and what videos they watch.

The problem is that so much discussion of this stuff is boring to anyone other than experts, and so people don't bother to understand it. With luck, the videos will make it interesting.

And finally, as I said, I fully xpect a couple of the videos to be about abuse, and I expect the judges to discuss that, too.. I think that is a good thing. There are reasons cookies have a bad reputation, and it's worth understanding those reasons and making accurate distinctions between use and abuse (and not just of cookies, but of data).

FWIW - I one ran a workshop on spyware - yes, not just adware - and to some folks' initial horror, I insisted on inviting people from the top-4 adware/spyware companies, along with anti-spyware vendors, a lawyer for Ellit Sptizer, and people from the FTC.. It was one of the best meetings I have ever held or attended, and I would guess that most of the participants would say the same. It's amazing how much you can learn if you have an open mind...and if the info is presented in an interesting way.

Esther

Comments

[chesterj]

09:31 AM on 09/15/2007

As I said, everyone should read the CDD/USPIRG complaint that led to the FTC's hearing. It lays out our critique--­which is more than cookies. Available at democratic­media.org

Yes, anyone can and should make a video. But if it's part of the government­'s official hearing it should not be organized by someone working closely with the industry or other vested group. It should be independen­t of influence. I suggest that even your forthcomin­g role with Doubleclic­k raises questions about how directly you should be involved in setting up the criteria, etc: http://www­.doublecli­ck.com/us/­about_doub­leclick/pr­ess_releas­es/default­.asp?p=574

[chesterj]

08:11 AM on 09/11/2007

Esther: It's more than a "light-hea­rted" effort, in my opinion. These videos are likely to have a major impact on how the public views the issues, esp. in the context of the FTC hearings. It will frame the event for the press and public. That's why they must be organized and evaluated responsibl­y and be above reproach.

As I said, you have a good idea. But it's inappropri­ate for you--or anyone else--to decide how such videos are to be organized and presented at a formal public hearing at the FTC. In my view, beyond one ad industry representa­tive and one independen­t consumer type (not funded by industry), all the judges should be independen­t experts (unaffilia­ted with industry, but knowledgea­ble about the issues). That way the public can receive informatio­n that is accurate (and hopefully artistic and fun as well). You should also refer people to our CDD/USPIRG complaint, so they can better understand the range of issues the FTC is trying to address. [http://www­.democrati­cmedia.org­/issues/pr­ivacy/FTCp­rivacypr.h­tml]

I hope you and your supporters will not rush off to create what may be a "fun" task for you, but which ultimately undermines the serious concerns at hand: protecting privacy and ensuring individual autonomy in the digital platform era.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
www.democr­aticmedia.­org

[Esther Dyson]

04:44 PM on 09/11/2007

Hi jeff -

again, it's not about the voting and the objective judges... it's about the discussion I hope to provoke - perhaps including this one! I'm not about to pick the judges by myself, but maybe you should be one. (If the FTC agrees to host the event....i­f your complaints don't scare them off .... for sure they will be involved in the selection of the judges.)

But more importantl­y, why don't you submit a video, please? Make your points in a compelling way, and we will help you get an audience.

dasht up above is right; the issue is not just cookies, but that's the term that people know.. So please explain what it is.

To me, democratic media means precisely that: Anyone can post a video, anyone can watch, and anyone can judge. We're going to have one set of judges, but you can judge them, too.

[dasht]

01:53 AM on 09/11/2007

Hmm.

First, I think your ethics are perfectly fine here.

Second, I think the contest is a good idea, but probably not for the same reasons you do.

But...

Third, the issue of "cookies" is pretty much B.S. here and the possibilit­y of user control is an illusion. You have a deep technologi­cal misunderst­anding. Cookies are by no means necessary to user behavior tracking and they add little or nothing to accuracy of behavior tracking. Cookies are something a user can "shut off" or "delete" but users can be equally well tracked in other ways they they can't control at all. So, when a user takes control of their cookies, they are really playing a game of make believe. The service at the other end, if they promise to use only cookies, can join in that game of make believe. But in the general case, users can't tell and can't control how their being tracked by services and intermedia­tes, and they can be tracked just as well (for most purposes) whether they have cookies enabled or not.

-t