Re: TPE Handling Out-of-Band Consent (including ISSUE-152)

We also use JavaScript tags, not just pixel tags, though which one we use
is up to the publisher, not up to us.  Using JavaScript tags does not help
us with real-time OOBC determination; the limitations are server-side, and
if we could do real-time JS-tag lookup, we could do real-time pixel-tag
lookup; neither lookup is possible.

Any kind of interaction with the user will most likely not be allowed to
occur, since few publishers will want their user experience turned to crap
by having the user interact with either User Agent pop-ups or custom pages
from third parties.  Even if all of that were not an issue, using the
in-band exception mechanism would skew research horribly, and the balanced
and tuned panels constructed by our Measurement Science department would be
replaced by biased and un-measurable crowds.  None of those mechanisms or
outcomes are acceptable.

I don't understand why you think that non-real-time determination of OOBC
undermines the standard, as long as only permitted uses are followed.  How
is there "tracking" if users for whom there is no consent have their data
de-identified to the same level that is required for DNT:1 users, before
any use?

--ronan


On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Mike O'Neill
<michael.oneill@baycloud.com>wrote:

> It would be very easy to set up a page (that includes JS) with a document
> origin the same as the 1x1 gif hostname., then execute the API to get
> consent. A panel member just needs to visit the page and click a ”I agree I
> am a member of the panel” button. If they must run with JS disabled they
> just need to set the DNT general pref. to 0.****
>
> ** **
>
> We do not need to change the TPE for this and we are undermining the core
> reason for the standard if we allow an exemption for it.****
>
> ** **
>
> Mike****
>
>
>