Re: explicit-explicit exception pairs

This thread began with a discussion of whether the specifications should include support for explicit-explicit exceptions. In the interest of sanity, civility, and inbox control, I'd like to pop the conversational stack and return there. 

The first issue we had to consider was whether there are use cases that necessitate explicit-explicit exceptions. We've now heard from quite a few stakeholders that explicit-explicit exceptions are important in the EU owing to the ePrivacy Directive. We've also previously discussed several other scenarios where explicit-explicit exceptions would be helpful. (Nick sent an email with a convenient list.) I think it's fair to say sufficient use cases have been raised to warrant thinking through how to implement the feature. If the technical complexity is excessive, we can circle back to whether the feature is worthwhile.

Ian has raised some technical concerns about how explicit-explicit exceptions would work in practice. I think that would be a productive place to refocus the conversation.

Jonathan 


On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Rigo Wenning wrote:

> On Tuesday 08 May 2012 14:21:32 Shane Wiley wrote:
> > #2 breaks most of the ad ecosystem (security/fraud, financial/audit,
> > frequency capping, basic analytics, etc.) - unique, anonymous/non-PII
> > cookies are needed for basic business operations.
> > 
> 
> 
> Which in turn is exactly the opportunity we are working on. We have talked 
> about the security/fraud exceptions.. An agreed thing that has buy-in is 
> much better than a conspiracy theory on what one might do with the data 
> collected. We are there and we want to improve IMHO. 
> 
> Rigo