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

How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 34 posts

Re: How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good

#2

Post by nikcub »

since DNT is opt-in for ad networks it is about as useful as robots.txt. the good guys will honor it, but the bad guys - who users are really concerned about, will ignore it.

a better solution is to integrate tools to allow users to block third-party scripts, to fix bugs and improve cache handling headers that can be used to track users, and to not let any third-party scripts store any information on the client.

Re: How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good

#4

Post by Wilya »

It would be more interesting to know the adoption of this among website developers. And some use cases where it is beneficial for them (as I don't see any). As it is, it is quite useless. If the feature doesn't do anything, the numbers are just a consequence of the buzz done around it, nothing more.

Re: How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good

#5

Post by robryan »

Wilya wrote: post #4

It would be more interesting to know the adoption of this among website developers. And some use cases where it is beneficial for them (as I don't see any). As it is, it is quite useless. If the feature doesn't do anything, the numbers are just a consequence of the buzz done around it, nothing more.

There either needs to be user demands or laws to push it I think. Given that the average user doesn't really care in most cases though I think they are a long way from succeeding with it. Good to see them at least offering up something though.

Re: How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good

#6

Post by Xuzz »

Most of us on Hacker News, from what I can tell, are generally against legislating the Internet. But, that's exactly what DNT requires to be effective, since it provides no technical barrier against tracking: either websites are legislated into being required to honor it, or it has essentially no value to users. As much as privacy is important, I'm actually glad that Chrome doesn't support DNT. Hopefully that will give reason for a better technical solution to be developed.

Re: How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good

#7

Post by bmuon »

Working as a developer in an ad network I'm very interested in implementing this. However, said ad network doesn't currently provide an opt-out mechanism and Mozilla isn't doing a good job of providing me with arguments to take to management and convince them that a DNT opt-out is something they want. What do you think?

Re: How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good

#8

Post by mnutt »

nikcub wrote: post #2

since DNT is opt-in for ad networks it is about as useful as robots.txt. the good guys will honor it, but the bad guys - who users are really concerned about, will ignore it. a better solution is to integrate tools to allow users to block third-party scripts, to fix bugs and improve cache handling headers that can be used to track users, and to not let any third-party scripts store any information on the client.

If you don't allow third-party scripts to store any information on the client, you break everyone's Google Analytics scripts. Then everyone will have to give out subdomains to analytics companies, ad networks, etc and we'll be right back where we started.

Re: How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good

#9

Post by icebraining »

nikcub wrote: post #2

since DNT is opt-in for ad networks it is about as useful as robots.txt. the good guys will honor it, but the bad guys - who users are really concerned about, will ignore it. a better solution is to integrate tools to allow users to block third-party scripts, to fix bugs and improve cache handling headers that can be used to track users, and to not let any third-party scripts store any information on the client.

The thing is that as usual, there's no good or bad guys. The ones doing the tracking - which is in this case embedded in the websites - are not criminals who run botnets and crack servers, they're big, amoral companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and some specialized firms.

These can be pressured (by public opinion, for example) into complying with DNT even if it's not their 'first instinct' to do so.

Post reply on HN