The IAB announced, at its summit in Palm Springs, that its code of conduct will begin to take effect within six months, and we’re happy to say that we will be providing them with the technology to monitor compliance. Additionally, the meaning of “Do Not Track” has been questioned by multiple parties this week, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Harlan Yu (from a legal perspective), and our own Colin O’Malley on the IAB blog. IAB's Consumer Privacy Initiative Takes Effect – ClickZ – The Interactive Advertising Bureau will give members up to six months to comply with a code of conduct for behavioral targeted advertising. New members must comply within three months or else forfeit their membership. PubMatic: Consumers Confused About Online Tracking –  MediaPost – PubMatic will release a study Monday that finds Internet users are more accepting of anonymous data collection when they understand how advertisers use it. The paper, Audience Selling for Publishers, reveals that most consumers don't understand that interest-based advertising is anonymous. What Does the "Track" in "Do Not Track" Mean? – Electronic Frontier Foundation – There is more flexibility on the policy side of Do Not Track: "what is tracking?" "what should websites do to avoid tracking users who set the DNT header?" "would any websites be required to comply with the header? There is a spectrum of good answers to each of these questions. This post will try to set out what we think some of the good answers are. What are the Constitutional Limits on Online Tracking Regulations? – Freedom to Tinker – As the conceptual contours of Do Not Track are being worked out, an interesting question to consider is whether such a regulation—if promulgated—would survive a First Amendment challenge. Could Do Not Track be an unconstitutional restriction on the commercial speech of online tracking entities?