Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

Walter, perhaps you should take your tech suggestion to the MRC, where it
would actionable, if they find it valid for their Congressionally mandated
purpose.  Just a friendly suggestion, but as far as I know, they are not
directly represented here.

Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group |
Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB




On 10/25/12 11:53 AM, "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl>
wrote:

>On 2012-10-25 16:54, Dobbs, Brooks wrote:
>> They are attempting to reliably indicate that some counting of ads
>> was
>> actually consumed or displayed to or made available to (insert term
>> here) to "quality" recipients. Now, to your linkability question ­
>> yes "quality" probably is an indication that they are a "real"
>> person.
>> So MRC or any audit company doesn't need an identified list of
>> individuals who saw the million ads, but in many ways what they are
>> saying is that these e.g. million impressions have enough linkability
>> to them that I can assure you that they aren't "low quality" i.e. not
>> a person. Without direct knowledge of MRC's secret sauce, I am sure
>> that IP address plays a role in this as a primary source and that IP
>> is very likely still used even where the cookie reads Opt_Out. I
>> would
>
>A cryptographic hash of the IP-address, UA string, the first 7 bytes of
>a 64 bit Unix timestamp salted with the date string would suffice to
>provide a pretty hard to link identifier that would meet the needs as
>you just described.
>
>But as you have indicated most of us don't know and the only ones
>claiming to know haven't volunteered to provide further information so
>far.
>
>Regards,
>
>  Walter
>

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 16:20:58 UTC