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@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:25:33 +0000
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc: "Tracking WG" <public-tracking@w3.org>, "Nicholas Doty" <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Message-ID: <2gvhf.maz7iq.0-qmf@gna.phonk.net>
Oh, demonstrate that the user is in UK reminds me of the German suggestion to only allow porn on the internet after 10:00pm

Please don't blame the TPWG for every stupid law on the planet. I think ICO would be a much better addressee for this 
 
--
 
-- sent from mobile
 


On 26.09.12 20:01 Alan Chapell wrote:



On 9/26/12 1:50 PM, "Rigo Wenning" <rigo@w3.org> wrote:


>Alan, 
>
>you create, by definition, a scenario that works only with extended
>tracking. This is turned into a use case that has to be fulfilled
>even in the presence of DNT:1. "that User" is revealing to that
>respect.


To be clear - this is not something I've created or imagined. It is a real
life scenario.
> 
>
>Now if a legal entity promised to some authority that it will serve
>an ad to "that User",


I'm not saying the legal entity promised to serve an ad to a User. I'm
saying that the PCMCP required an advertiser to demonstrate that the User
wasn't located in the UK or face fines.





>the legal counsel of that entity better has a
>good professional insurance. Secondly, if such legal/contractual
>obligation exists, service can only be provided to identified users.
>DNT:1 is that they don't want to be identified. The least thing one
>would expect is that the service uses the exception mechanism to
>explain what the heck is happening here and why.
>
>But this is certainly not something that we could let go as "minor
>collection/risk" permitted use without transforming the entire
>protocol into a futile exercise.
>
>Rigo
>
>On Wednesday 26 September 2012 12:02:03 Alan Chapell wrote:
>> >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.
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 21:28:46 UTC

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