Difference between revisions of "Project:Adtech"
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
== {{Q|842}}-related questions == | == {{Q|842}}-related questions == | ||
{{Q|842}} gives the right to information about the "essence of the contract" in joint-controller situations. What does this cover? | {{Q|842}} gives the right to information about the "essence of the contract" in joint-controller situations. What does this cover? | ||
| − | * Can we know how identifier hashing is done? | + | * Can we learn more about {{Q|846}} or {{Q|847}} through this? |
| + | * Can we know how identifier hashing is done? | ||
== RID == | == RID == | ||
Revision as of 14:08, 21 May 2019
Interesting queries
- Lumascape
- What is the impact of a Q839 on a data management platform (Q495)(all)?
- Is this helpful for understanding cross-device tracking (Q519)? probabilistic fingerprinting (Q520)?
- More specifically a SAR on an identity resolution service (Q559)(all)? Is it different than for a data broker (Q522)(all)?
- What is the legal situation of Adobe Marketing co-op (Q399), successor to Demdex (Q398)?
- What traces are left by real-time bidding (Q523)? Which are accessible through Q839?
- Which adtech company (Q110)(all) or adtech product (Q834)(all) set the marketing segment (Q838)(all)?
- When are they shared?
- Is deciding the marketing segment (Q838) enough to make an entity a data controller (Q96)(all)? What about if you decide how they can be shared?
- Turn Inc (Q546) for instance facilitated the selling of an audience (Q496) by Weather Channel (Q840) of people more "likely to be constipated". This was determined (?) through the use of geolocation data (Q539).
Tag management
- What is the impact of an indirect SAR on a tag manager (Q504)(all)
- Can a SAR tell you for whom an advertising tag (Q503)(all) fired?
- Is the legal situation different for a SAR on Google Tag Manager (Q70)?
Bidding process
- What is the impact of a(n indirect) SAR on a ad exchange (Q498)(all)?
- Can you know whether ad impression (Q497)(all) was triggered? How much it cost?
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.
- 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) gives the right to information about the "essence of the contract" in joint-controller situations. What does this cover?
- Can we learn more about GDPR Article 20 (Q846) or pseudonymization (Q847) through this?
- Can we know how identifier hashing is done?