Align all descriptions of GPC to say it restricts sharing and targeting between different organizations. #104
Conversation
…ng between different organizations.
|
I like this, but wonder if this doesn't go a little further than you intended. It's possible that you intended this as well :) My reading is that this change would make Protected Audience incompatible with a choice to enable GPC. That might align with expectations, but it doesn't align with the goals of Protected Audience. |
index.html
Outdated
| <dfn data-lt="cross-organization ad targeting|">Cross-organization targeted | ||
| advertising</dfn> means showing a person advertisements, where the advertisement is selected | ||
| based on data about that person that was gathered from organizations beyond just the one | ||
| they're interacting with when they see the advertisement. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
An explicit mention that "organization" is something that varies by the jurisdiction could be useful.
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've suggested changes here to match what I think the best path forward is here. It matches my last comment and leans into the existing ambiguity in "party" while explicitly identifying some ad targeting as a form of sharing, rather than something elsyoue entirely.
| third parties, or to have their data used for cross-organization ad targeting. | ||
| This standard is intended to work with existing and upcoming legal frameworks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| third parties, or to have their data used for cross-organization ad targeting. | |
| This standard is intended to work with existing and upcoming legal frameworks | |
| third parties. This standard is intended to work with existing and upcoming legal frameworks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Undoing this change. I think the implicit inclusion of ads stuff is best for the abstract.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It wasn't as clear to me that they were opposed from the discussion, but I may have missed it in the subtlety of performing vs facilitating cross party ad targeting. I agree that if the editors think it is useful to identify as an independent behavior to call out in the abstract that we should continue to do so and the diff you already have in this PR is good.
index.html
Outdated
| @@ -161,7 +162,7 @@ <h2>Definitions</h2> | |||
| <p> | |||
| A <dfn>do-not-sell-or-share interaction</dfn> is an interaction with a website in which the | |||
| person is requesting that their data not be sold to or shared with any party other than the | |||
| one the person intends to interact with, or to have their data used for cross-site ad targeting, | |||
| one the person intends to interact with, or to have their data used for [=cross-organization ad targeting=], | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| one the person intends to interact with, or to have their data used for [=cross-organization ad targeting=], | |
| one the person intends to interact with, or to have their data used for [=cross-site ad targeting=], |
s/organization/party/
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Your suggestion says "site" here, but I've switched it to "party".
s/organization/party/g Co-authored-by: bvandersloot-mozilla <[email protected]>
| third parties, or to have their data used for cross-organization ad targeting. | ||
| This standard is intended to work with existing and upcoming legal frameworks |
index.html
Outdated
| @@ -161,7 +162,7 @@ <h2>Definitions</h2> | |||
| <p> | |||
| A <dfn>do-not-sell-or-share interaction</dfn> is an interaction with a website in which the | |||
| person is requesting that their data not be sold to or shared with any party other than the | |||
| one the person intends to interact with, or to have their data used for cross-site ad targeting, | |||
| one the person intends to interact with, or to have their data used for [=cross-organization ad targeting=], | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Your suggestion says "site" here, but I've switched it to "party".
My very strong take-away from yesterday's discussion is that the relationship between GPC and any particular advertising mechanism is up to various regulators, and we should anything that looks like we're infringing on that. Following Ben's lead and suggesting wording that leans into that existing ambiguity. |
Co-authored-by: Michael Kleber <[email protected]>
j-br0
added
the
agenda+
This is an alternative to #102 to be more clear that GPC also opts into the Colorado/Connecticut/New Jersey/Virginia/Utah framework. As discussed in my last comment on #102, we don't need to mention cross-organization targeting—"sharing" covers this use—but folks might like the extra clarity. Those laws (e.g. Virginia) share a definition of "targeted advertising":
I've paraphrased this into this PR's definition of "cross-organization targeted advertising". Google isn't tied to the specific paraphrase here. I did want to point out that we've avoided the word "affiliate" even though the laws use it. They define it as legal entities under common control, but the rest of the world uses it in affiliate marketing to refer to unrelated businesses that send each other sales, so it's best to avoid the confusion here.
Google also isn't tied to using "organization" in the term. "Party" and "entity" are also options. We avoided "site" because that's not the boundary the laws look at, and because actually blocking information sharing at the site boundary would require new information boundaries inside existing companies that run multiple websites. We also didn't use an unqualified "targeted advertising" even though the laws use that phrase, because the laws explicitly define it in a way that differs from an average person's understanding of the phrase.
Preview (#dfn-cro…) (#abstrac…) (#introdu…) (#definit…) (#legal-e…) | Diff