Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#81

Post by jasonkostempski »

lloeki wrote: post #71
xg15 wrote: post #13

Ok, honestly, was DNT ever more than a smoke grenade for muddying the privacy discussion? The standard always relied on every single shady data collector out there to act against their core interest, facing not even the risk of detection (let alone punishment) if they don't comply, all just because you asked them nicely. You might as well carry a "do not rob me" card in your wallet. Was there ever a honest belief by…

Ever seen those "here we'll be setting cookies because we're going to track you if you agree (agree/fuck off)" in Europe? A EU directive or something of the best intent mandates that when you're tracking someone beyond technical needs this boilerplate is required before setting a cookie. Guess what if you disagree there's no way to store the user's answer, so the box keeps popping up, forever nagging the privacy cons…

The best solution would be to remove the real problem which is the useless law.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#82

Post by Omniusaspirer »

Chaebixi wrote: post #69
qb45 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's up with this "Ayn Rand fanboys" meme? I keep seeing this recently and this time I can't even imagine how it could be relevant.

> I keep seeing this recently and this time I can't even imagine how it could be relevant. In this case, it sounds like it's mocking the idea that the market-based voluntary agreements could solve this problem. Lots of people seem to think you can solve any problem by just "letting the market work."

The market is working very well on advertisements. They grow increasingly obnoxious, and the adblockers keep getting better and more prevalent in response. The end result is either reasonable ads (probably too late for this) or the death of this particular flavor of the ad-driven revenue model.

I fully expect we'll look back on Internet advertising as a bootstrapper for the early Internet economy as opposed to a lasting model.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#83

Post by Skunkleton »

EpicEng wrote: post #26
Skunkleton wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly isn't a complete solution, but it probably did reduce the number of ad networks that tracked you. So yes, I guess you could say it works?

"probably" doesn't lead to "yes, it works". What's the tradeoff? How many good actors does "probably" imply?

Ok, say you are tracked by google, facebook, adzerk, and twitter. If you set DNT, you are now only tracked by google, facebook, and twitter. Yeah, it was pretty much pointless, but you are being tracked by one less network, so it worked to some extent.

It is trash, but at least it is something.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#85

Post by slau »

lloeki wrote: post #71
xg15 wrote: post #13

Ok, honestly, was DNT ever more than a smoke grenade for muddying the privacy discussion? The standard always relied on every single shady data collector out there to act against their core interest, facing not even the risk of detection (let alone punishment) if they don't comply, all just because you asked them nicely. You might as well carry a "do not rob me" card in your wallet. Was there ever a honest belief by…

Ever seen those "here we'll be setting cookies because we're going to track you if you agree (agree/fuck off)" in Europe? A EU directive or something of the best intent mandates that when you're tracking someone beyond technical needs this boilerplate is required before setting a cookie. Guess what if you disagree there's no way to store the user's answer, so the box keeps popping up, forever nagging the privacy cons…

As far as I recall, the EU cookie law is a bit more global than that: a website needs to get permission/consent whenever it wants to store/retrieve information from the visitor's browser---this isn't just limited to tracking. This means that every single website hosted in Europe/targeted at a European audience need to request the authorisation to use the user's browser storage.

A number of websites formulate this as "By continuing to use this website, you agree that we will access your cookies," accompanied with a "Dismiss" button, but that's not really what the spirit of the law is.

DNT didn't change anything to this, as it was meant for a completely different use. I'd even say using DNT for this is a complete hack, which sort of misses the point of both the cookie law and DNT. You are, however, completely right that it is stupid beyond ridicule that you technically can't store the fact that a user doesn't want cookies on the browser.

Edit: paragraph formatting.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#86

Post by detaro »

slau wrote: post #85
lloeki wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever seen those "here we'll be setting cookies because we're going to track you if you agree (agree/fuck off)" in Europe? A EU directive or something of the best intent mandates that when you're tracking someone beyond technical needs this boilerplate is required before setting a cookie. Guess what if you disagree there's no way to store the user's answer, so the box keeps popping up, forever nagging the privacy cons…

As far as I recall, the EU cookie law is a bit more global than that: a website needs to get permission/consent whenever it wants to store/retrieve information from the visitor's browser---this isn't just limited to tracking. This means that every single website hosted in Europe/targeted at a European audience need to request the authorisation to use the user's browser storage. A number of websites formulate this as…

Not all information, only those that are not strictly necessary to provide the service (so e.g. a basic session cookie created once a user logs in or starts using the shopping cart, ... should not require consent)

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#87

Post by soared »

vec wrote: post #75
ilogik wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in advertising,and we do respect dnt

So if I set the DNT flag on my browser, your advertising network will neither set any cookies nor serve me any beacons or tracking pixels nor collect any other analytics data from me whatsoever? Can I or a neutral third party audit your internal database to verify that my browsing history is not being recorded by you? Do you provide a list of all third parties with which you share information with so I can attempt to…

You can pretty much check it yourself. Enable dnt, visit a site, and see if tracking pixels fire (in ghostery). Disable dnt and do the same.

I'd bet nobody respects dnt like that, but you can still check. Obviously if they want to be shady they can get around this too.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#88

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

shawnee_ wrote: post #11

Online privacy remains an issue that upsets people, but at day's end, neither companies nor the Trump administration have any real interest in protecting privacy. Does not surprise me at all. As a very early adopter of Twitter, I have to say I thought this platform had a lot of promise at one time. Unfortunately, it's becoming a textbook case of how massive ego corrupts and destroys a product, a company, and now even…

> As a very early adopter of Twitter, I have to say I thought this platform had a lot of promise at one time.

Given that is was a centralized, proprietary service from day one, so it necessarily would follow the interests of the owners, and that also has a strong network effect that locks people in ... how did you come to that wild conclusion?

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#89

Post by omginternets »

lucb1e wrote: post #56
omginternets wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh well in that case I'm no longer concerned /s

Posted 1 minute ago and already downvoted. I think it's a valid remark (even if it's sarcastic/cynical): the parent could have given some more information about why it is so, rather than just stating what any representative of such a company would say as well.

It's hardly a valid point because (a) nobody in their right mind would take his word for it and (b) even if what he said were demonstrably true, that would just mean he doesn't work for a scummy company.

His comment in no way responds to the main argument, here, which is that there exist many scummy companies who ignore DNT.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#90

Post by greglindahl »

vec wrote: post #75
ilogik wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in advertising,and we do respect dnt

So if I set the DNT flag on my browser, your advertising network will neither set any cookies nor serve me any beacons or tracking pixels nor collect any other analytics data from me whatsoever? Can I or a neutral third party audit your internal database to verify that my browsing history is not being recorded by you? Do you provide a list of all third parties with which you share information with so I can attempt to…

blekko did interpret DNT that way, because I made it do so. I'm sure we weren't/aren't the only example.
Post reply on HN