RE: Remove profiling prohibition for frequency capping (ISSUE-236)

Jeff,

We agreed as a group that any "in flight" changes were deemed behavioral targeting, not frequency capping, so we already removed that use case from consideration (such as sequential ads) at the Oct 2013 Sunnyvale meeting.  The use case here is the most simple one imaginable -- not showing the same user the same ad more than X times in a Y given time frame - nothing more.

- Shane

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Chester [mailto:jeff@democraticmedia.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:50 AM
To: Shane M Wiley
Cc: Walter van Holst; public-tracking@w3.org
Subject: Re: Remove profiling prohibition for frequency capping (ISSUE-236)

Walter is correct. In addition, Frequency capping is now also connected to real-time "in-flight" changes to targeted personalized campaigns. In-flight is ad biz term for such ad technique changes done during a campaign, which can also involve "creative versioning," that is new campaign dynamic elements that reflect how a person is responding. Capping connected to these and similar changes to a users experience should not be permitted under DNT:1

Jeff

Jeff Chester
Center for Digital Democracy
Washington DC
www.democraticmedia.org
Jeff@democraticmedia.org

> On Sep 11, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Shane M Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> 
> Walter,
> 
> Then we disagree on the merits here.  Removing frequency-capping will have fairly negative repercussions on users seeing the same ads over-and-over-and-over driving them to turn off DNT.  The group on both sides agreed to this carve-out long ago due to the perverse disincentives created in this scenario (I believe only 2 or 3 people out of ~70 ever had an issue here).  Your technical solution is simply unworkable.  Looking forward to the Call for Objections.
> 
> - Shane
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walter van Holst [mailto:walter.van.holst@xs4all.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:30 AM
> To: public-tracking@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Remove profiling prohibition for frequency capping 
> (ISSUE-236)
> 
>> On 2014-09-11 12:18, Shane M Wiley wrote:
>> 
>> We've always agreed the frequency-capping would be a permitted use in 
>> situations where a DNT=1 is received.  Are you suggesting we now 
>> remove that permitted use or are you simply commenting on this 
>> specific language?
> 
> I am perfectly fine with frequency-capping, as long as it doesn't 
> require profiling at an individual level. It cannot result in 
> collection of data by a third-party if the UA is setting a DNT:1 flag. 
> The mere fact that this particular purpose of tracking is beneficial 
> both to the user and the advertiser does not justify in itself an 
> override of a
> DNT:1 preference. And I can think of several methods to prevent saturation of a particular user with a particular ad, for example progressively dropping least-significant bits of IP-addresses to mask out groups of users that an ad should not be shown to.
> 
> I do not recall a broad consensus about this particular permitted use.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  Walter
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 10:54:42 UTC