Quote:
Originally Posted by tarka
This would seem logical, but I imagine when they ran the actual ad part of the trial, they purchased ad space again supplying the same link instead of an image (eg http://www.phormadserver.com/banner.php) meaning that all cookies dropped previously would be readable when ads were served. This would allow them to decide if you should be served a default advert or a targeted one.
The question arises however... how were they updating that cookie information to assign you to the advertising channels? My brain cogs are whirring... I think another read of Dr Claytons report is in order. |
If they were not forging cookies in other domains once they had obtained your UID from the previous cookie drop, they couldn't profile all pages.
Unless they linked UID to IP?
I'm not sure how relevant Dr Claytons report would be to the version used in the 2006 trial, but I can't see how it could work without forging cookies or using IP.
EDIT : Was IP classified as PII in 2006?