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

Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)

From: Jonathan Mayer <jmayer@stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:21:24 -0700
Cc: JC Cannon <jccannon@microsoft.com>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E2BC2481-EE02-4FE5-B596-7E842D72CE2A@stanford.edu>
To: Steven Vine <svine@pulsepoint.com>
I think there are three points in here.

1) Would the logged-in exception be a de facto site-specific exception?

Yes, and even broader: the logged-in exception would be a de facto web-wide exception.

2) Would the logged-in exception allow retargeting?

Yes.  It would allow just about any use of the first party's data - profile-based targeting, retargeting, widget personalization, etc.

3) Is this "targeting without tracking"?

I don't want to pry open the worthless "What is tracking?" debate, beyond noting that many participants would consider collection-without-logging to impose privacy risks that this group should address.

On Mar 15, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Steven Vine wrote:

> Isn’t this function just targeting without tracking? Why not then allow ad retargeting if the user has logged in at the first party site that is doing retargeting:
> 
> To play on JC’s scenario: User logs into Amazon and navigates to CNN.com to read an article. The user is able to see an ad based on their Amazon account data. However, Amazon should not log the fact that the user has viewed the article or even gone to CNN unless the user clicks on the Amazon ad.
> 
> And if this is allowed wouldn’t this kind of retargeting be ok for any first party who gets a site-specific exception?
> 
> Steve
> 
>  
> On 3/15/12 7:46 PM, "JC Cannon" <jccannon@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Now we just need to get the others to agree.. :)
> 
> JC
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rigo Wenning [mailto:rigo@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:39 AM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Cc: JC Cannon
> Subject: Re: Logged-In Exception (ISSUE-65)
> 
> JC,
> 
> On Wednesday 14 March 2012 16:28:27 JC Cannon wrote:
> > Specific scenario: User logs into FB and navigates to CNN.com to read an
> > article. The user is able to see the FB friends that liked the article..
> > However, FB should not log the fact that the user has viewed the article or
> > even gone to CNN unless the user clicks on the FB Like button.
> >
> > If feel this type of behavior would be expected and I personally like this
> > type of feature.
> 
> This was the point I was trying to make in my earlier email (and use case).
> How come we agree on things? :)
> 
> Rigo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contextweb and Datran Media have merged. We are now PulsePoint! This is to alert you that my email address has changed to the pulsepoint.com domain reflecting our new brand. Please take a moment to update your address book accordingly.   ­­  
Received on Sunday, 18 March 2012 18:21:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:26 UTC