-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Trail store impression entry information #3
Comments
I think in this case the proposal text might have been a bit unclear. By default yes, same-origin policy applies. However, if In the part that you pointed out, the trail store would still be filled by
So in this sense, in your example the trail store is really populated from |
Thank you for your answer. It is a bit clearer for me now. |
I think you are right, and I think the proposal is a bit handwavy in this respect. I see two ways forward here:
I think 1) would be more useful; it would allow building metrics, that respect user privacy, while at the same time letting advertisers know on which sites their impressions were shown on. For example, we could have some metric that gives the message "most of your impressions were shown on news.com and they click more on news.com than they click on clothes.com" or something in similar spirit. I'm going to try clarify the proposal text to call out to this detail. |
Hi,
In SPURFOWL, you give this example of an entry in the trail store for an impression:
If I understood the proposal correctly, news.com is the one populating the store in this case (same-origin policy).
In the discussions around privacy sandbox proposals (including TURTLEDOVE), we usually consider that displays are rendered in fenced frames and that the publisher (news.com) can't know the content and the redirection domain of the ads on its estate.
The opposite is also true.
How can the publisher populate the trail store - the adv field in particular - in this case? Who could do it since the actor would need to have both the publisher and the advertiser information?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: