- From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:52:01 +0200
- To: Alan Chapell <achapell@chapellassociates.com>
- Cc: public-tracking@w3.org, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org>, "Dobbs, Brooks" <Brooks.Dobbs@kbmg.com>
Alan, On Wednesday 26 September 2012 10:24:03 Alan Chapell wrote: > Hi Rigo - In the below example, how does the User turning on the > DNT header provide proof to the Ad Network or agency that an ad > was served to that User prior to the enactment of the DNT header? Prior to receiving a DNT:1 header the ad network collects data normally and can provide proof as usual. After having received a DNT:1 header, the ad network can provide proof that it has received a DNT:1 header and cannot provide proof as usual. Now if you want to continue to do re-targeting and provide proof that you have successfully re-targeted this individual, I would guess that the required data collection and use goes a fair amount beyond what the user expects when sending you DNT:1 . Maybe you can also understand this DNT:1 as an opt out of the user of the targeting. Should permitted uses be stronger than such an opt out? Rigo
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 15:52:31 UTC