Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 97,176

        1. …in reply to @dmarti
          dmarti jason_kint rochemathieu IABEurope The first two things already happen but the signing by the user and immutability of that set of consents is a real problem. Unless all users register for global always-on IDs there's *no* way to verify under a daisybit-style system
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood -1 🙁
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        dmarti jason_kint rochemathieu IABEurope But also the Daisybit's supported consent fields have no method to pass along consent to a specific technology (geo-tracking) only uses ('purposes'). Purposes could be used to pass that along as well, but there's a lot of work that would need to be done.
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar Mood +5 🙂
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      dmarti jason_kint rochemathieu IABEurope And if active verification is required of consent, it would be pointless because the daisybit system only works on top of contractually promised honesty which it appears like this is saying doesn't work.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar Mood +6 🙂
  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
    dmarti jason_kint rochemathieu IABEurope Any ad tech system that has a component which can boil down to 'cross your fingers and hope no one will commit fraud' is pretty much guaranteed to not be used appropriately, which means big problems for the IAB consent framework under GDPR according to how this reads.
    On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 1 Favorite Mood +6 🙂

Search tweets' text