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: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:02:03 -0400
To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
CC: <public-tracking@w3.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Message-ID: <CC889D7E.21D84%achapell@chapellassociates.com>






On 9/26/12 11:52 AM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:

>Alan, 
>
>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.

OK, and that's my point. In my hypo, the ad network will be in hot water
with the PCMCP unless it is unable to demonstrate that pharma ads were
served to that User and the circumstances under which they were served. As
a result, the advertiser and/or ad agency will be fined. Are you ok with
that outcome?



> 
>
>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?

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The rationale behind permitted uses
is that they continue even in the presence of a DNT signal.

>
>Rigo
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 16:02:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:34 UTC