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

Re: ACTION-255: Work on financial reporting text as alternative to legal requirements

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:52:01 +0200
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Message-ID: <149855192.U8TiJHgHlA@hegel.sophia.w3.org>

On Wednesday 26 September 2012 10:24:03 Alan Chapell wrote:
> Hi Rigo - In the below example, how does the User turning on the
> DNT header provide proof to the Ad Network or agency that an ad
> was served to that User prior to the enactment of the DNT header?

Prior to receiving a DNT:1 header the ad network collects data 
normally and can provide proof as usual. After having received a 
DNT:1 header, the ad network can provide proof that it has received 
a DNT:1 header and cannot provide proof as usual. 

Now if you want to continue to do re-targeting and provide proof 
that you have successfully re-targeted this individual, I would 
guess that the required data collection and use goes a fair amount 
beyond what the user expects when sending you DNT:1 . Maybe you can 
also understand this DNT:1 as an opt out of the user of the 
targeting. Should permitted uses be stronger than such an opt out?

Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 15:52:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:44:55 UTC