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

IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 67 posts

Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death

#11

Post by lotu »

pippy wrote: post #3

The whole concept of DNT is just stupid. It's misleading users and won't work. By telling users you have better privacy simply because your browser adds a random header tag onto requests you're misleading them. Sites have no obligation to obey it and it will give users a false sense of security. We already have proven, well defined method of DNT already: private browsing. This works by simply removing resources after…

I agree 100%, this whole fiasco is just a about convincing the US Congress not do anything (which they shouldn't btw). Anyways, the DNT specification has exceptions in it large enough to drive a truck through. On the other hand if it would finally shut up people whining about being tracked online that would be worth (though I doubt it will, as whining is too much fun).

Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death

#12

Post by Cogito »

What is the situation if a user agent, on installation/upgrade, asks a user to update their DNT status but in doing so defaults to on? The user has to explicitly agree to turning this setting on (as they have to accept the configuration before proceeding), and is able to turn it off, but most people will just click through anyway.

Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death

#13

Post by melvinmt »

ars wrote: post #9

Turning on DNT by default is a great way to ensure it will be utterly ignored. So I quite support the requirement that people explicitly enable it. Remember the DNT is voluntary - but if everyone does it by default, then there is nothing left to track, so websites will have no interest in paying attention to the flag.

> then there is nothing left to track

Isn't that the whole point? Websites may not have interest in tracking disabling policies, but a lot of people do. Maybe these advertising companies ought to incentivize users to opt-in to sell their data instead of the other way around.

Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death

#14

Post by CyrusL »

pippy wrote: post #3

The whole concept of DNT is just stupid. It's misleading users and won't work. By telling users you have better privacy simply because your browser adds a random header tag onto requests you're misleading them. Sites have no obligation to obey it and it will give users a false sense of security. We already have proven, well defined method of DNT already: private browsing. This works by simply removing resources after…

Individual sites are not really the ones auctioning ad inventory that is targeted by a user's cookies. That specific technology continues to become consolidated in a handful of exchanges. You could probably get 95%+ of cookie-targeted impressions compliant by regulating 5 or 10 companies.

Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death

#15

Post by untog »

Animus7 wrote: post #7
pippy wrote: post #3

The whole concept of DNT is just stupid. It's misleading users and won't work. By telling users you have better privacy simply because your browser adds a random header tag onto requests you're misleading them. Sites have no obligation to obey it and it will give users a false sense of security. We already have proven, well defined method of DNT already: private browsing. This works by simply removing resources after…

> Sites have no obligation to obey it and it will give users a false sense of security. Until appropriate legislation comes into play. It worked reasonably well with the Do Not Call lists.

Telephone networks are still largely national-based. The idea of individual countries implementing "Do Not Track" legislation is a mess. Do they only enforce it on sites based in their own country? If so, it's useless to users. If they apply it to all countries, it won't work.

Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death

#16

Post by coopdog »

melvinmt wrote: post #13
ars wrote: post #9

Turning on DNT by default is a great way to ensure it will be utterly ignored. So I quite support the requirement that people explicitly enable it. Remember the DNT is voluntary - but if everyone does it by default, then there is nothing left to track, so websites will have no interest in paying attention to the flag.

> then there is nothing left to track Isn't that the whole point? Websites may not have interest in tracking disabling policies, but a lot of people do. Maybe these advertising companies ought to incentivize users to opt-in to sell their data instead of the other way around.

The whole business model is that users don't care if they're tracked, so let's track them (and others) and do things for them that we couldn't before

I can see Google fully implementing DNT on the basis that users don't care, and for the few that do they're happy to comply

But making it default to on, especially if no one gives a damn is the death knell to the whole business model

Suddenly you have to pay for everything.

Although I would be interested in using DNT if out had more granular control to block certain entities

Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death

#17

Post by gringomorcego »

Animus7 wrote: post #7
pippy wrote: post #3

The whole concept of DNT is just stupid. It's misleading users and won't work. By telling users you have better privacy simply because your browser adds a random header tag onto requests you're misleading them. Sites have no obligation to obey it and it will give users a false sense of security. We already have proven, well defined method of DNT already: private browsing. This works by simply removing resources after…

> Sites have no obligation to obey it and it will give users a false sense of security. Until appropriate legislation comes into play. It worked reasonably well with the Do Not Call lists.

Germany still passes screwed up laws, but in terms of privacy they are leading the charge.

Catching up is a matter of when, not if.

Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death

#18

Post by awaythrow »

Good for privacy litigation. "My client had DNT in her browser set to 'on' and the company intentionally ignored this and tracked her actions on the web, vioalting her right to privacy and causing monetary damages in the amount of $________."

Web developers might hate it, but DNT could be potentially good for end-users who want to make privacy claims. It's just one extra header. A few extra bytes. Meanwhile things like XML and JSON, which add considerable bloat to web responses, are accepted without any complaint.

Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death

#19

Post by chc »

melvinmt wrote: post #13
ars wrote: post #9

Turning on DNT by default is a great way to ensure it will be utterly ignored. So I quite support the requirement that people explicitly enable it. Remember the DNT is voluntary - but if everyone does it by default, then there is nothing left to track, so websites will have no interest in paying attention to the flag.

> then there is nothing left to track Isn't that the whole point? Websites may not have interest in tracking disabling policies, but a lot of people do. Maybe these advertising companies ought to incentivize users to opt-in to sell their data instead of the other way around.

Yes, that is the whole point. Those people who are interested can send the Do Not Track header to indicate the preference. By sending it even when the user didn't indicate that preference, IE would have been the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Network owners wouldn't has been able to trust the header to indicate actual user preference.
Post reply on HN