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 17:45:02 -0400
To: <rigo@w3.org>
CC: Tracking WG <public-tracking@w3.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Message-ID: <CC88EF62.21E52%achapell@chapellassociates.com>
I'll be sure to communicate to the PCMCP that the official position coming
from the General Counsel of the W3C is that they are stupidŠ (:




From:  <rigo@w3.org>
Date:  Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:25 PM
To:  Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc:  Tracking WG <public-tracking@w3.org>, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>,
"Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Subject:  Re: ACTION-255: Work on financial reporting text as alternative to
legal   requirements
Resent-From:  <public-tracking@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:28:48 +0000

> 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 21:45:34 UTC

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