W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > February 2012

Re: ACTION 124

From: Lee Tien <tien@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:29:12 -0800
Message-Id: <287E818A-9DF4-4CAA-B736-E4AC32E51986@eff.org>
Cc: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>, "Amy Colando (LCA)" <acolando@microsoft.com>, JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
To: Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
I may be missing a nuance or two, but doesn't this incentivize shifting ads (and aggregation of tracking data) toward first parties?

Lee

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Jeff,
>  
> NO – if a 3rd party is serving the ad on Yahoo!, then DNT is observed (3rd party context).  What I called out is only when Yahoo! is both the server and recipient of an ad – then it has 1st party protection.
>  
> - Shane
>  
> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:09 AM
> To: Shane Wiley
> Cc: Amy Colando (LCA); JC Cannon; public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ACTION 124
>  
> The use of all this data for ad targeting on Yahoo (Google, Microsoft, etc) is the concern on First party and DNT.
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> www.democraticmedia.org
> www.digitalads.org
> 202-986-2220
>  
> On Feb 22, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> 
> 
> Jeff,
>  
> This is only when Yahoo! serves an ad on Yahoo! – nothing more.  All other transactions that occur on the Exchange do not gain 1st party status.  I believe your statement somehow misses that critical point. 
>  
> - Shane
>  
> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:00 AM
> To: Shane Wiley
> Cc: Amy Colando (LCA); JC Cannon; public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ACTION 124
>  
> Thanks.  My point exactly.  First party status for "publisher" companies assembling far-reaching datasets due to many properties, inc. ad exchanges, raises concerns about DNT and First party.  
>  
>  
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> www.democraticmedia.org
> www.digitalads.org
> 202-986-2220
>  
> On Feb 22, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Shane Wiley wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff,
>  
> I can answer this for Yahoo! as I suspect the answer may be the same.
>  
> First, an Ad Exchange (in our case RightMedia) is a neutral technology platform and has no independent rights to data that moves through the system (a pure “Service Provider”).  With that in mind, the only data that would receive 1st party status would be that information that Yahoo! collects from the Exchange when used on Yahoo! (basically ads served within the Yahoo! Ad Network where Yahoo! is the Publisher).  All other transactions where Yahoo! is involved as an Ad Network where Yahoo! is not the Publisher, would be subject to the DNT signal (because Yahoo! is a 3rd party in that context).
>  
> Make sense?
>  
> - Shane
>  
> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 8:36 AM
> To: Amy Colando (LCA); JC Cannon
> Cc: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ACTION 124
>  
> I have a question, which I hope we can discuss on call.  Under Microsoft's proposed definition of First Party, would all the data it plans to use for its Ad Exchange be exempt from any DNT request?
>  
> As one of your colleagues explained discussing Microsoft expansion of its Australia/NZ  ad exchange targeting:  "We are in the process of building a capability across our group of companies to effectively capture and use the wealth of data we have across our assets including Windows Live, Xbox, Cudo, iSelect, Rate City, Ticketek, Hoyts, Nine rewards and over 80 ninemsn sites. We would then be able to overlay this data offering onto our inventory."http://www.exchangewire.com/apac/2012/02/21/microsofts-marc-barnett-on-the-microsoft-advertising-exchange-in-australia-nz-relationships-with-third-party-buyers-and-channel-conflict/#more-15579
>  
>  
>  
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 18:29:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:45 UTC