Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

On Thursday 25 October 2012 15:40:10 Dobbs, Brooks wrote:
> It may be that it is concluded that accrediting measurement is
> incompatible with DNT, but I would suggest that this is an
> outcome with exceedingly broad reaching consequences.

There is a big eco-system. But we can't just do nothing because a 
change here would affect changes there. I would hope that we can do 
DNT so that it is feasible with MRC. Ed has hinted that maybe MRC 
can be implemented in a way that is more privacy friendly and thus 
acceptable even under DNT:1. I hear Kimon saying that they have done 
their homework already and measure without personal data. Maybe a 
simple tweak will help. Can we compare IAB EU way to the others?

Nobody ever said that this endeavor will be simple. But again, if as 
is fits, fine. If we need to tweak, we have to identify what. To 
know, we need to know what personal identifiers they use. I hear 
Brooks saying "IP" but there may be other identifiers. Nobody wants 
to end measuring. But we have to resolve a conflict here between 
measuring (and accuracy) against an expressed will of not being 
followed and put into a dossier. 

Brooks do you happen to know what MRC collects? Or is this too 
sensitive for a public mailing-list?


Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 08:47:49 UTC