Difference between revisions of "Project:Adtech"

From Wikibase Personal data
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 64: Line 64:
 
** [https://lumapartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2y103ITnIXmg2.lPu6ncZsis.wcn8DVuYIUfyLrC9cdQiWUhfOdDLq6-1024x768.png "historic" picture]
 
** [https://lumapartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2y103ITnIXmg2.lPu6ncZsis.wcn8DVuYIUfyLrC9cdQiWUhfOdDLq6-1024x768.png "historic" picture]
  
== SAR-related questions ==
+
== {{Q|845}}-related questions ==
 
* What is the impact of a {{Q|839}} on a {{AllQ|495}}?
 
* What is the impact of a {{Q|839}} on a {{AllQ|495}}?
 
** Is this helpful for understanding {{Q|519}}? {{Q|520}}?
 
** Is this helpful for understanding {{Q|519}}? {{Q|520}}?

Revision as of 14:04, 21 May 2019

Relevant items

Interesting queries

GDPR Article 15 (Q845)-related questions

Tag management

Bidding process

Top-down, bottom-up, maximizing utility

The goal of SARs could be to maximize utility in understanding the ecosystem.

Hence the goal of litigation should be around expanding the reach of SARs, in order to "flatten" the ecosystem.

This has two advantages: better competition, more transparency.

In particular, for every role, there is a possibility of picking a small player with this role, a huge one, or one with dual roles. **Each of those situations will lead to different outcomes for the SAR, all valuable**.

Scaling effects

Indirect SARs sound complicated and unhelpful. I am not sure: you get a lot of allies in putting pressure on the service providers, who sometimes masquerade as GDPR data processor (Q841). The costs and effects have a completely different scaling factor, and also an impact on the choice of jurisdiction.

Portability related questions

  • All boils down to: what is provided?
  • Why do this? Because then we can transfer to researchers to understand better the ecosystem.

GDPR Article 26 (Q842) related questions