W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > October 2014

Re: Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)

From: Jeffrey Chester <jeff@democraticmedia.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:45:18 -0400
Cc: Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com>, TOUBIANA Vincent <vtoubiana@cnil.fr>, "public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AB2FB96C-EC37-4E6C-886A-67B564E1C315@democraticmedia.org>
To: Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>
Shane:

There is no reason to prop up programmatic, given its dominance and capabilities.  What is required are safeguards—including via DNT.

If the group can’t ensure DNT works via the dominant tracking modality, it’s a scarlet letter for WC3.

Jeff


Jeffrey Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20009
www.democraticmedia.org
www.digitalads.org
202-986-2220

On Oct 29, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

> Jeff,
>  
> I’m not saying that at all – and I think you know better.  I’m saying we need to find solutions within DNT that support the programmatic marketplace.
>  
> - Shane
>  
> From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:15 AM
> To: Shane M Wiley
> Cc: Rob van Eijk; TOUBIANA Vincent; public-tracking@w3.org (public-tracking@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)
>  
> Is what you and Yahoo saying that DNT shouldn’t protect privacy from the widespread and unregulated uses of audience buying/programmatic advertising?  DNT must address programmatic, which is already the majority of the display market and—as we all know—will dominate (even across platforms).
>  
> Jeff
>  
>  
> Jeffrey Chester
> Center for Digital Democracy
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 550
> Washington, DC 20009
> www.democraticmedia.org
> www.digitalads.org
> 202-986-2220
>  
> On Oct 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> I'm the Chair of the Metadata Working Group at the IAB so thank you for calling that out.  But understand even that standard will take time to roll out and is meant to compliment - NOT DISRUPT - the current workflow.  The discussions around RTB are highly disruptive and BREAK the current model - with no easily solutions at hand.  That is my core concern - there is a lack of consideration within the group of this critical dynamic.
> 
> - Shane
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:46 AM
> To: Shane M Wiley
> Cc: TOUBIANA Vincent; Tracking Protection Working Group
> Subject: RE: Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)
> 
> Well, change is a constant factor. For example, the IAB is working on adding metadata all the way down the ad chain. There is no reason why the current protocols are cast in stone. The whole purpose of DNT is to have in impact on current ad practices.
> Rob
> 
> Shane M Wiley schreef op 2014-10-29 17:06:
> 
> Disagree - any new standard should respect the marketplace that it 
> expects to adopt it.  If we force considerable changes in the current 
> ad ecosystem you won't have any adoption (meet in the middle versus 
> force all in one direction).
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob van Eijk [mailto:rob@blaeu.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:44 AM
> To: Shane M Wiley
> Cc: TOUBIANA Vincent; Tracking Protection Working Group
> Subject: RE: Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)
> 
> >From what I understand, the URL is an optional field in Bid Requests 
> in most RTB-protocols. In my view RTB-protocols should innovate to 
> adapt to DNT, not the other way around.
> Rob
> 
> Shane M Wiley schreef op 2014-10-24 00:33:
> 
> Vincent,
> 
> Some bidders may only be contextually targeting information (not 
> cross-site or "different context") and will need to the URL to 
> determine content on the page.
> 
> - Shane
> 
> FROM: TOUBIANA Vincent [mailto:vtoubiana@cnil.fr]
> SENT: Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:26 PM
> TO: Shane M Wiley; Tracking Protection Working Group
> SUBJECT: RE: Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)
> 
> Shane,
> 
> My idea was to keep it as a one step process where the bid request 
> would only contain the UID and only the win notice would contain the 
> URL. I still don't understand how the ADX can broadcast (URL,UDI) in 
> the bid request without violating the "Third party compliance"
> requirement to not share data
> (http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-complianc
> e .html#third-party-compliance [1]). Sending only the UID could solve 
> this problem.
> 
> That being said, a two step process would actually work very well.
> Especially, if UGE status are directly reported in the "matching 
> tables" hosted by the ad-exchange; in that case the "additional step"
> would have no impact at all on the transaction latency.
> 
> Vincent
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shane M Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com]
> Sent: Thu 10/23/2014 8:23 PM
> To: TOUBIANA Vincent; Tracking Protection Working Group
> Subject: RE: Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)
> 
> Vincent,
> 
> The Bid occurs in a single pass so all relevant information is 
> passed as part of the "offer to bid" transaction (URL, UID) the 
> bidder would then check their UGE records for that particular UID to 
> then determine if leveraging profile information would be possible in 
> this transaction. Attempting to make this a "two-step" process would 
> slow down the transaction too much in a world where Ad Exchanges 
> already struggle to meet SLAs with a single call structure.
> 
> - Shane
> 
> From: TOUBIANA Vincent [mailto:vtoubiana@cnil.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 2:29 AM
> To: Shane M Wiley; Tracking Protection Working Group
> Subject: RE: Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)
> 
> Shane,
> 
> I have a clarifying question. In the precise case of RTB, when DNT 
> is set, is it possible to only include in the Bid Request information 
> about the user (i.e. the user id) but not about the current network 
> transaction (i.e. no information related to the visited website)? 
> That would allow website to check that they have a UGE before 
> bidding, information about the visited website would then be only 
> transmitted to the winning bidder.
> 
> This option would still allow RTB to take place while preventing 
> information about a network transaction to be shared with third 
> parties.
> 
> Vincent
> 
> De : Shane M Wiley [mailto:wileys@yahoo-inc.com]  Envoyé : mercredi
> 15 octobre 2014 17:33  À : 'Tracking Protection Working Group'
> Objet : Indirect DNT Processing (Proposed)
> 
> TPWG,
> 
> I was asked to develop language for consideration of how to manage 
> DNT signals within Real-Time Bidding (RTB) environments such as an Ad 
> Exchange. I've up-leveled the concept to "Indirect DNT Processing" to 
> cover scenarios where a user's signal may move from a direct client 
> interaction to one between servers (server-to-server).
> 
> [Normative]
> For Servers in direct communication with the User Agent that then 
> communicate further with other parties within the same transaction 
> but outside direct communication with the User Agent, those Servers 
> MUST convey the current DNT flag relayed to their domain to those 
> other parties. In cases where other parties have recent knowledge of 
> their own domain's DNT flag or UGE MAY process the request leveraging 
> that information but MUST respond appropriately in the status 
> response that they have done so - which, in turn, MUST then be 
> conveyed by the Server to the User Agent.
> 
> [Non-Normative]
> This is intended to facilitate indirect communications through a 
> transitive passing of permission to allow for DNT processing to occur 
> even when a processor doesn't have direct access to the User Agent. 
> If the processor has direct information about their own domain's DNT 
> setting with the User Agent, such as their last direct interaction 
> with the User Agent, they may want to consider this in their 
> transaction handling.
> 
> Question - While from a policy perspective the passage of the STATUS 
> RESPONSE value makes sense I'm not sure if this works as cleanly with 
> the current TPE handling of those statuses. Should we add a new 
> flag/field to state a response is being conveyed from another party 
> as to not confuse the User Agent into thinking the response is coming 
> from the server in which it is in direct communication?
> 
> - Shane
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-compliance.
> html#third-party-compliance
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2014 17:45:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 3 November 2017 21:45:24 UTC