W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > September 2012

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

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:50:44 +0200
To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Message-ID: <1543796.ohu3qvUBQW@hegel.sophia.w3.org>

you create, by definition, a scenario that works only with extended 
tracking. This is turned into a use case that has to be fulfilled 
even in the presence of DNT:1. "that User" is revealing to that 

Now if a legal entity promised to some authority that it will serve 
an ad to "that User", the legal counsel of that entity better has a 
good professional insurance. Secondly, if such legal/contractual 
obligation exists, service can only be provided to identified users. 
DNT:1 is that they don't want to be identified. The least thing one 
would expect is that the service uses the exception mechanism to 
explain what the heck is happening here and why. 

But this is certainly not something that we could let go as "minor 
collection/risk" permitted use without transforming the entire 
protocol into a futile exercise. 


On Wednesday 26 September 2012 12:02:03 Alan Chapell wrote:
> >Prior to receiving a DNT:1 header the ad network collects data
> >normally and can provide proof as usual. After having received a
> >DNT:1 header, the ad network can provide proof that it has
> >received a DNT:1 header and cannot provide proof as usual.
> OK, and that's my point. In my hypo, the ad network will be in hot
> water with the PCMCP unless it is unable to demonstrate that
> pharma ads were served to that User and the circumstances under
> which they were served. As a result, the advertiser and/or ad
> agency will be fined. Are you ok with that outcome?
> > 
> >
> >Now if you want to continue to do re-targeting and provide proof
> >that you have successfully re-targeted this individual, I would
> >guess that the required data collection and use goes a fair
> >amount beyond what the user expects when sending you DNT:1 .
> >Maybe you can also understand this DNT:1 as an opt out of the
> >user of the targeting. Should permitted uses be stronger than
> >such an opt out?
> I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The rationale behind
> permitted uses is that they continue even in the presence of a
> DNT signal.
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 17:51:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:39:00 UTC