Re: Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)

On Dec 5, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Mike O'Neill wrote:

> My point is that this text says the gateway is a service provider for the bidders, but it is collecting the data (the users web history) and perhaps broadcasting it to the bidders. It is irrelevant to the user that it does not use the data in its own right, though it may be important for the bidders.

It says "a service provider for each of the parties".  That is relevant.

> This use of service provider differs from our definition because we originally meant it for third-parties that are contracted with the first-party

Sorry, you seem to have missed significant parts of that conversation.
It was intended to be applicable to first and third parties.  It also
allows for service providers to the user (e.g., split browsers).

> My other point about the impossibility of forwarding the tracking preference is simply that the gateway can only "see" its own tracking preference, it cannot determine the tracking preference for downstream bidders, so cannot communicate it to them.

The preference is the user's for the current request, not that of the
gateway and not that of the downstream bidders.  It is possible for a
user to say that they want DNT:0 for certain gateways, regardless
of the selected party, perhaps because they have already analyzed the
exchange's policies or perhaps because they have received an incentive
to do so.  Regardless, a UGE will necessarily apply to the exchange
as a whole.  What might not apply to the exchange as a whole are the
separate, out-of-band consent agreements that might exist with only
a few of the potential bidders.


Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 20:05:37 UTC