You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Use Case
Independent verification & transparency are common and necessary requirements in digital advertising. According to the World Federation of Advertisers Sep 2020 Cross-Media Measurement Technical Blueprint, advertisers foundationally require the ability to report on basic_segments (link) which must be independently verified. Stated concretely, browsers should have the ability to report on some strict list of basic_segments (i.e. cohorts / interest groups) that were not necessarily targeted.
The current aggregate reporting api alludes to the ability to for demographic slices to be reported upon (as indicated in the snippet below)
const entryHandle = window.writeOnlyReport.get('campaign-123');
// Add any demographic slices you want or know in the current
// context.
entryHandle.set('country', 'usa');
...however, the way in which this use case would be achieved is not entirely clear as basic_segmentsshould be non-targetable class of browser Interest Groups.
Proposal
Advertisers and/or publishers should have an option for enabling verification basic_segment reporting. Perhaps this could be accomplished via an extension to the .joinInterestGroup() API, thus allowing verification companies to execute JS that adds basic_segment metadata to the browser:
The generic nature of a basic_segment makes these attributes well-disposed to being differentially private aggregations. Once this data is collected server-side some service can/should ensure that necessary privacy thresholds are met before releasing any aggregates for reporting (as already indicated in the Aggregation Service proposal).
The aggregated data should be forwarded to some .well-known location of the third-party verification company, when basic_segment verification reporting is requested by the publisher and/or advertiser.
Please let me know if this is unclear in any way!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @csharrison is this an actively maintained proposal? I haven’t seen much activity across this repo, so wanted to confirm whether I should expect any commentary on this issue. Thanks!
Use Case
Independent verification & transparency are common and necessary requirements in digital advertising. According to the World Federation of Advertisers Sep 2020 Cross-Media Measurement Technical Blueprint, advertisers foundationally require the ability to report on
basic_segments
(link) which must be independently verified. Stated concretely, browsers should have the ability to report on some strict list ofbasic_segments
(i.e. cohorts / interest groups) that were not necessarily targeted.The current
aggregate reporting api
alludes to the ability to fordemographic slices
to be reported upon (as indicated in the snippet below)One could imagine the following:
...however, the way in which this use case would be achieved is not entirely clear as
basic_segments
should be non-targetable class of browser Interest Groups.Proposal
Advertisers and/or publishers should have an option for enabling verification
basic_segment
reporting. Perhaps this could be accomplished via an extension to the.joinInterestGroup()
API, thus allowing verification companies to execute JS that addsbasic_segment
metadata to the browser:This should allow for demographic reporting similar to the following:
The generic nature of a
basic_segment
makes these attributes well-disposed to being differentially private aggregations. Once this data is collected server-side some service can/should ensure that necessary privacy thresholds are met before releasing any aggregates for reporting (as already indicated in the Aggregation Service proposal).The aggregated data should be forwarded to some .well-known location of the third-party verification company, when
basic_segment
verification reporting is requested by the publisher and/or advertiser.Please let me know if this is unclear in any way!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: