Re: ACTION-255: Work on financial reporting text as alternative to legal requirements

One of the nice features of DNT here would be that they can actually 
proof, because they received a DNT:1 header and they can log that. 
So regardless of whether we have or have not to proof something to 
the ad agency or PCMCP, we have that audit trail. This is the same 
for the "I have consent for my cookies". They also need to keep some 
information so that the DPA can evaluate. 

just 2 cents

Rigo

On Monday 24 September 2012 16:57:45 Nicholas Doty wrote:
>  IF A CONSUMER ENABLES DNT AFTER THEY HAVE SEEN THE RETARGETED AD
> BUT PRIOR TO THE REQUEST FROM THE PCMCP, THE AD NETWORK THAT
> SERVED THAT AD WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE PROOF TO THEIR AD AGENCY AND
> THE PCMCP. "SORRY, WE CAN'T HELP YOU BECAUSE THAT USER TURNED ON
> DNT" IS UNLIKELY TO BE AN ACCEPTABLE ANSWER.
> 
> I appreciate your documenting the example. I apologize if I
> misunderstood the examples, I thought they were all intended as
> examples where data retention and use would continue for DNT:1
> communications under this particular permitted use, but maybe you
> were just intending them as use cases that we ought to discuss.
> 
> In this case, I don't think the spec or the group has held that a
> user who starts sending a DNT:1 signal after receiving a
> re-targeted ad expects as part of that preference for previously
> collected data (not under DNT:1) to be retroactively removed or
> its use limited. If the case is a non-DNT user receiving a
> retargeted ad, then I don't think this spec would have any
> bearing on what data could be turned over to PCMCP. If the case
> is a user arriving with DNT:1 on the news.co.uk site, my
> understanding is that the user wouldn't be served a retargeted ad
> (based on their having seen the ad on a particular US-based
> website) at all.

Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 12:42:35 UTC