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

51–60 of 67 posts

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

#51

Post by Wilya »

ericflo wrote: post #49
lla0ajj wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're just upset because DNT might affect your income? Tracking does not mean looking at server logs (or by analogy, reviewing security camera footage), it means things like cookies, Flash cookies, beacons and KISSmetrics. Chances are DNT idea will have little effect. People raised issues with cookies back in the 1990's and in rerospect it hasn't impeded websites from tracking. People were forced to opt-in t…

What browser forces you to opt-in to cookies?

Try to turn cookies off and see what still works.

Some people still build sites that have basic functionality with JS off. Nobody bothers to do the same for cookies.

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

#52

Post by BitMastro »

TomGullen wrote: post #48

Honest question, why do people care if they are being tracked? The amount I care is quite far off from the amount everyone else seems to care, could someone educate me on why I need to care more?

The same for me. Why should I care if I'm tracked? And if I don't want to be tracked I'll use private browsing (it's not just for porn, you know?). If I want even more privacy I'll use a clean vm, or if I'm going paranoid I could use an anonymous proxy or similar.

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

#53

Post by JoeAltmaier »

BitMastro wrote: post #52
TomGullen wrote: post #48

Honest question, why do people care if they are being tracked? The amount I care is quite far off from the amount everyone else seems to care, could someone educate me on why I need to care more?

The same for me. Why should I care if I'm tracked? And if I don't want to be tracked I'll use private browsing (it's not just for porn, you know?). If I want even more privacy I'll use a clean vm, or if I'm going paranoid I could use an anonymous proxy or similar.

Consider bubbling, e.g. Google returns search results consistent with your previous clickthroughs. You end up seeing only results you agree with; it insulates your searching experience from disturbing foreign ideas like evolution or liberalism.

Tracking can be done by servers, using a workstation signature (ip/port, installed software versions etc, been discussed in other posts), it doesn't require your client station's consent (cookies).

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

#54

Post by JoeAltmaier »

brandnewlow wrote: post #47
slowpoke wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Suddenly you have to pay for everything. False dichotomy. It's not "targeted ads vs no content on the internet". People will just have to use generic ads, not targeted ones. I don't think there will be any meaningful difference in profit, and even if there is, then so be it.

Good luck selling "generic" anything to someone.

Like newspapers did for 60 years? And magazines? and TV? By guessing that people reading cycling blogs might be interested in cycling gear etc?

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

#55

Post by BitMastro »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #53
BitMastro wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same for me. Why should I care if I'm tracked? And if I don't want to be tracked I'll use private browsing (it's not just for porn, you know?). If I want even more privacy I'll use a clean vm, or if I'm going paranoid I could use an anonymous proxy or similar.

Consider bubbling, e.g. Google returns search results consistent with your previous clickthroughs. You end up seeing only results you agree with; it insulates your searching experience from disturbing foreign ideas like evolution or liberalism. Tracking can be done by servers, using a workstation signature (ip/port, installed software versions etc, been discussed in other posts), it doesn't require your client statio…

Yet, when I look for "python", I'm not interested in snakes. When I look for "eclipse", it's almost sure that I'm not looking for astrological phenomena or (spare me!) books. It's incredibly useful to write "cinema" without having to specify which city I'm obviously in. The point is: I want to be bubbled. In almost every situation, apart from reading opinions, it is the right thing to do for me. In my humble opinion, the bubbling effect is overrated and (should be) avoidable with private browsing. Am I wrong?

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

#56

Post by Xylakant »

gringomorcego wrote: post #17
Animus7 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Message from Germany: Doesn't look like that from here. Our politicians are fighting the wrong battles and loosing most of them as well. I haven't seen a single law passed in the last 10 years that actually enhanced privacy in the real world.

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

#57

Post by ticks »

mbrubeck wrote: post #25
Animus7 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Or if a large portion of the industry decides to voluntarily adopt the standard, to counter the threat of legislation. A number of large ad networks have already announced support for DNT. Sure, there will always be sites that ignore the header, but there's also a realistic chance that it will give users a meaningful choice about how their behavioral data is used by many of the biggest sites they use most often.

The good thing about legislation is you can go after those minority of bad guys. That's what happens when businesses call individuals who are on these privacy lists, they are reported to a regulator and the regulator investigates.

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

#58

Post by mike-cardwell »

BitMastro wrote: post #50
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your critique of DNT, but private browsing isn't magic, there's plenty a bad actor could do to track you regardless of what you throw away at the end of the session, which means the same critique applies (unless you're using it for it's intended purpose, privacy from other users of your computer, and even then it's got holes).

How?

Current implementations of private browsing just throw everything away at the end of a session. That doesn't prevent cross site tracking during a session. If you start up a browser in private browsing mode, then log in to Facebook and visit some site with a like button on it. Facebook still knows you visited that site. At least, I think that's how it works.

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

#59

Post by BitMastro »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #58
BitMastro wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How?

Current implementations of private browsing just throw everything away at the end of a session. That doesn't prevent cross site tracking during a session. If you start up a browser in private browsing mode, then log in to Facebook and visit some site with a like button on it. Facebook still knows you visited that site. At least, I think that's how it works.

Thanks. So a better implementation should perhaps instantiate a different session for each browser window (sharing the same session for the tabs in the same window). The user should also avoid logging in to any service linked to a known profile.

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

#60

Post by mike-cardwell »

BitMastro wrote: post #59
mike-cardwell wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current implementations of private browsing just throw everything away at the end of a session. That doesn't prevent cross site tracking during a session. If you start up a browser in private browsing mode, then log in to Facebook and visit some site with a like button on it. Facebook still knows you visited that site. At least, I think that's how it works.

Thanks. So a better implementation should perhaps instantiate a different session for each browser window (sharing the same session for the tabs in the same window). The user should also avoid logging in to any service linked to a known profile.

A better implementation would be one which instantiates a different session not on a per window basis, or even a per tab basis, but on a per "domain in address bar" basis.

And by session, this wouldn't just be the cookie store, it would also be the cache store and everything else which can be manipulated for tracking purposes.

EDIT: I'd also want it clearing between browser restarts too.

If this became (over night) the default standard way for browsers to behave, the vast vast majority of websites (at least 99.9% I'd guess) would continue to work without issue and it would pretty much annihilate nearly all privacy/tracking issues on the web.

Stuff like Google Analytics would continue to be able to work, but wouldn't be able to gather as many different types of information. Advertisers would be able to continue to advertise, but they would lose the ability to track you across sites, which potentially might hit their revenue a bit.

Post reply on HN