Re: Change proposal: new general principle for permitted uses

Rob, 

before we take that on, we have to match Kathy's suggestion with Ronan's 
interpretation. I have repeatedly asked whether audience measurement is 
used to target users either by changing their view on the web or by 
allowing a real time adaption of web content. 

I was always told, this is not the case and that sporting 
interpretations to the contrary only engage those who are making them. 
This is why Kathy included the bit about the recognized QA mechanism by 
the professional associations. 

If you have concerns about people giving misinterpretations to Kathy's 
text, please indicate where those are. We can not lock down the practice 
of a theoretic audience measurement company interpreting the text as a 
permission to create user profiles under the permitted use of "audience 
measurement". The only thing we can do is to make Kathy's text work. 

And it may also be clear that a far too creative interpretation of 
wording from a potential compliance specification will not always be 
accepted by all authorities. So before killing Shane's vision of one 
data store for permitted uses that you treat respectfully, I want to 
make sure we are not only talking past each other . 

 --Rigo

On Monday 22 July 2013 16:34:01 Rob van Eijk wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> I added a proposal for a new general principle for permitted uses to
> the wiki:
> 
> The reason this is relevant, is the recent discussion on audience
> measurement and frequency capping. An identifier set for one permitted
> use is currently not prohibited to use for another permitted use.
> 
> 
> == New general principle for permitted uses ==
> 
> 
> 5.2.5 no matching/syncing between permitted uses
> 
> Data collected or retained by a party for a specific permitted use
> must not be matched or synced with data from other permitted uses.
> 
> Disallowed Example: cookie syncing between permitted uses.

Received on Monday, 22 July 2013 23:20:10 UTC