Re: ACTION-408 - security & fraud proposed text - Section 6.2.

Hi David,

Thanks for weighing in and apologies for the tardy reply-- I've been
traveling, and am a bit behind on email.

I should acknowledge that defining this kind of traffic (in words) has
been challenging for industry too.  Anecdotally, we'd love to apply this
kind of logic:  "you just know it when you see it" or "if it looks like a
duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck."  Unfortunately neither of
those anecdotal definitions are acceptable for industry specs and

I normally agree with simplification, but in this case, every time we try
to simplify, it seems that we inadvertently leave out some bad actor
use-case(s) of concern that wouldn't be covered with less text-- so we end
up throwing those words right back into the definition to cover the bad
use cases.  

Defining the problems well is in fact the topic dejour with the IAB's
"Traffic of Good Intention" Taskforce (TOGI), which is attempting to solve
issues around traffic that is in fact disingenuous, deceptive, fraudulent
and the like.  Maybe "misrepresentative" is a better word, but when I
tried to vet that word, it was pointed out that one can unintentionally
misrepresent one's self (i.e. make a programming mistake that results in
an unintentional interaction), and doing so would be different than
intentionally trying to misrepresent one's self (deceptive, nefarious,
malicious, fraudulent).  So these words and definitions want to hinge on
INTENT of the actor creating/supporting the traffic or behavior.

I agree that disingenuous is not a word that's used in every-day
interactions, so it can seem a bit odd.  But placed in the context of an
actor's intent, it's better than most words I've tried to vet for this
definition.  I hope this helps.

Best Regards,


Chris Mejia | Digital Supply Chain Solutions | Ad Technology Group |
Interactive Advertising Bureau - IAB

On 6/14/13 7:18 PM, "David Singer" <> wrote:

>On Jun 13, 2013, at 20:46 , Chris Mejia <> wrote:
>> CM:  Good catch on the word invalid in the heading-- that should have
>> changed in the subject line to "disingenuous".
>This is at least an odd word to use.
>"lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically
>ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous."
>"I didn't give you my seat because I didn't realize that you are a senior
>citizen."  She's pretending to be naive, but is in fact simply
>self-centred; this is falsely ingenuous.
>How this applies to web traffic currently defeats me.  Is it a technical
>term of art used in the security industry?
>David Singer
>Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 23:46:39 UTC