Re: ACTION-415 Provide text proposal regarding limitations on using a Potential Consent signal

  We also need ID cookies, but we need them for many reasons, including
auditing frequency capping compliance and reporting on frequency, not just
for detecting OOBC.  By the way, I would not call the short retention a
"permitted use"; it is a "permitted retention" only.  No "use" of the data
is granted by this section.


On Thursday, June 13, 2013, Matthias Schunter (Intel Corporation) wrote:

>  Hi Ronan,
> Quick question: Do you only need a change in collection/retention time to
> 48h
> or would you also require to set a ID cookie?
> (i.e., loosely speaking "acting like DNT;0" for 48h and then cleaning up)?
> In the latter case (also 48h permission to set cookies), I would need to
> change the proposed text for this permitted use.

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 10:39:54 UTC