http://techliberation.com/2010/02/04/ostwg-child-protection-privacy-data-retention-mandates-v-behavioral-advertising/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Sun, 27 May 2012 22:43:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://techliberation.com/2010/02/04/ostwg-child-protection-privacy-data-retention-mandates-v-behavioral-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-68966 Berin Szoka Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:18:40 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=25701#comment-68966 <p>Well said.</p> Well said.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2010/02/04/ostwg-child-protection-privacy-data-retention-mandates-v-behavioral-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-68965 Guest Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:10:27 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=25701#comment-68965 <p>While many great points are made here, it is worth noting that there are 2 functions sought by online advertisers: targeting and reporting. While much discussion has been given to targeting's use and collection of data, relatively little discussion had been given to reporting, which is unfortunately the larger and more personal of the data uses. <br>While it is correct that from a targeting perspective identity, indeed individuality, is not required, from a reporting perspective this is often not the case. Reporting usually requires either attribution to a real indentified individual (CPA, Affiliate, ROI) or to a unique identifier (usually IP) which allows certain indentities to be removed. This of course raises the interesting question of the difference between knowing who someone is and the ability to prove who someone is not (a question at the heart of the click-fraud debate). While targeting seeks merely to broadly categorize, reporting often seeks to know who engaged in the activity either to attribute conversion or to prove that the activity belonged to a legitimate actor (not click fraud, not a robot, etc.). <br>Also it must be understood that each ad we see on the web generally has multiple data collectors associated with it with different reporting needs, and while relatively few data collectors are involved in ad targeting, each collector will generally log data like cookies and IP address and may store this for indeterminate amounts of time for reporting purposes. <br>Terabyte hard drives are now well under $100, making the cost of retaining event level reporting data negligible. From an online privacy perspective we should be thinking in terms of providing consumers with information about both targeting and reporting to allow them to make informed decisions about how they share their data and the services they get in return for this data sharing.</p> While many great points are made here, it is worth noting that there are 2 functions sought by online advertisers: targeting and reporting. While much discussion has been given to targeting's use and collection of data, relatively little discussion had been given to reporting, which is unfortunately the larger and more personal of the data uses.
While it is correct that from a targeting perspective identity, indeed individuality, is not required, from a reporting perspective this is often not the case. Reporting usually requires either attribution to a real indentified individual (CPA, Affiliate, ROI) or to a unique identifier (usually IP) which allows certain indentities to be removed. This of course raises the interesting question of the difference between knowing who someone is and the ability to prove who someone is not (a question at the heart of the click-fraud debate). While targeting seeks merely to broadly categorize, reporting often seeks to know who engaged in the activity either to attribute conversion or to prove that the activity belonged to a legitimate actor (not click fraud, not a robot, etc.).
Also it must be understood that each ad we see on the web generally has multiple data collectors associated with it with different reporting needs, and while relatively few data collectors are involved in ad targeting, each collector will generally log data like cookies and IP address and may store this for indeterminate amounts of time for reporting purposes.
Terabyte hard drives are now well under $100, making the cost of retaining event level reporting data negligible. From an online privacy perspective we should be thinking in terms of providing consumers with information about both targeting and reporting to allow them to make informed decisions about how they share their data and the services they get in return for this data sharing.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2010/02/04/ostwg-child-protection-privacy-data-retention-mandates-v-behavioral-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-66458 Berin Szoka Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:18:40 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=25701#comment-66458 <p>Well said.</p> Well said.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2010/02/04/ostwg-child-protection-privacy-data-retention-mandates-v-behavioral-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-66457 Guest Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:10:27 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=25701#comment-66457 <p>While many great points are made here, it is worth noting that there are 2 functions sought by online advertisers: targeting and reporting. While much discussion has been given to targeting's use and collection of data, relatively little discussion had been given to reporting, which is unfortunately the larger and more personal of the data uses. <br>While it is correct that from a targeting perspective identity, indeed individuality, is not required, from a reporting perspective this is often not the case. Reporting usually requires either attribution to a real indentified individual (CPA, Affiliate, ROI) or to a unique identifier (usually IP) which allows certain indentities to be removed. This of course raises the interesting question of the difference between knowing who someone is and the ability to prove who someone is not (a question at the heart of the click-fraud debate). While targeting seeks merely to broadly categorize, reporting often seeks to know who engaged in the activity either to attribute conversion or to prove that the activity belonged to a legitimate actor (not click fraud, not a robot, etc.). <br>Also it must be understood that each ad we see on the web generally has multiple data collectors associated with it with different reporting needs, and while relatively few data collectors are involved in ad targeting, each collector will generally log data like cookies and IP address and may store this for indeterminate amounts of time for reporting purposes. <br>Terabyte hard drives are now well under $100, making the cost of retaining event level reporting data negligible. From an online privacy perspective we should be thinking in terms of providing consumers with information about both targeting and reporting to allow them to make informed decisions about how they share their data and the services they get in return for this data sharing.</p> While many great points are made here, it is worth noting that there are 2 functions sought by online advertisers: targeting and reporting. While much discussion has been given to targeting's use and collection of data, relatively little discussion had been given to reporting, which is unfortunately the larger and more personal of the data uses.
While it is correct that from a targeting perspective identity, indeed individuality, is not required, from a reporting perspective this is often not the case. Reporting usually requires either attribution to a real indentified individual (CPA, Affiliate, ROI) or to a unique identifier (usually IP) which allows certain indentities to be removed. This of course raises the interesting question of the difference between knowing who someone is and the ability to prove who someone is not (a question at the heart of the click-fraud debate). While targeting seeks merely to broadly categorize, reporting often seeks to know who engaged in the activity either to attribute conversion or to prove that the activity belonged to a legitimate actor (not click fraud, not a robot, etc.).
Also it must be understood that each ad we see on the web generally has multiple data collectors associated with it with different reporting needs, and while relatively few data collectors are involved in ad targeting, each collector will generally log data like cookies and IP address and may store this for indeterminate amounts of time for reporting purposes.
Terabyte hard drives are now well under $100, making the cost of retaining event level reporting data negligible. From an online privacy perspective we should be thinking in terms of providing consumers with information about both targeting and reporting to allow them to make informed decisions about how they share their data and the services they get in return for this data sharing.

]]> http://techliberation.com/2010/02/04/ostwg-child-protection-privacy-data-retention-mandates-v-behavioral-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-66420 Big Brother Is Watching Me Type This Post Title « Around The Sphere Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:24:06 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=25701#comment-66420 <p>[...] From one report: [...]</p> [...] From one report: [...]

]]>