- From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:17:50 -0500
- To: David Wainberg <dwainberg@appnexus.com>
- Cc: Tom Lowenthal <tom@mozilla.com>, Lauren Gelman <gelman@blurryedge.com>, Justin Brookman <justin@cdt.org>, "public-tracking@w3.org" <public-tracking@w3.org>
Le 6 févr. 2012 à 16:20, David Wainberg a écrit : > I disagree on geo-targeting. I don't think that fits within definitions of tracking I've seen. not that easy. :) Unfortunately. > Moreover, Zip or Zip+4 contextual targeting is, to me, just a very short note, Zip+4 doesn't mean anything but in USA. This should not enter in any discussions related to *World Wide* Web standards ;) > low impact privacy-wise, and extremely beneficial, both to users, It may be beneficial to users. It may not be. It is all about context. The impact on privacy really depends on many constraints around the geolocation. * Someone in a low-density country-side becomes very identifiable. * Someone staying in the same area all the time and/or traveling a lot shows life patterns. Some services provider have the possibility to locate individuals very precisely with just the IP address. Specifically when this IP has been already identified by more than one user. > and to very many small local businesses that rely on precise contextual geo-targeting in order to use their limited advertising dollars effectively. Well this is not the benefit of the user here. But the benefit of the business, we should not collapse both. > They cannot afford broad un-targeted campaigns. By limiting this usage we'd be providing another competitive advantage to big national brands against small local businesses. This is true for the entire DNT proposal. Ultimately only the big businesses will be able to continue to collect data (through co-branding, acquisitions of vertical industry, etc, etc.). We should not put our head in the sand about it. -- Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 21:18:54 UTC