Re: Proposed Text for Local Law and Public Purpose

On 10/26/12 9:05 PM, David Wainberg wrote:

> On the problem of scope, I'm not sure how much of the problem is a
> philosophical divide and how much is a misunderstanding. The issue boils
> down to the value of the advertising. The ability to measure and verify
> online advertising is a huge component of its value. We tend to focus on
> the value of targeting the ads in the first place. But, regardless of
> how or whether the ad was targeted, take away the measurement after the
> fact and you've decimated the value. Regardless of the MRC, or any other
> group that establishes /minimum/ standards for measurement, what we're
> saying is that as you degrade the ability to measure, you degrade the
> value of the ads.
> Some will bristle at this because they see it as asking to trade privacy
> for dollars, but we've not had the conversation about the intended, or
> unintended, consequences of DNT. When we do, we can explore what are the
> benefits and trade-offs we want.

I for one won't bristle at that bit at all. One of my big annoyances
with the earlier flame war on this subject was that straw man arguments
were used. I agree thoroughly with you that both targetting and
measurement are essential elements for the commercial side of the ecosystem.

What we may disagree on is the extent to which a degradation of the
ability to measure is unacceptable or not. I still believe that a
commercially acceptable level of measurement is still possible through
the application of cryptographic hashing (I'll also respond to Roy's
remark in this regard), if only because we manage to do so in Europe
too. That is the part we may start bristling at each other's positions.
The fundamental precondition for having that conversation, namely an
acknowledgement of the interests the other side of the table, is there
(I hope) as far as I am concerned.



Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 19:31:18 UTC