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

Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

ypolicyblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#21

Post by tvladeck »

pbreit wrote: post #5
tvladeck wrote: post #2

They key thing to understand is that if IE10 did not have DNT enabled, that the default setting would be _just as arbitrary_ and would still therefore not "map to user intent" in their words. There has to be a default in one direction or the other. That, and many users will use IE10 knowing that it ships with DNT pre-enabled. To ignore this is totally immoral and unethical. This is totally shameful.

Nope. For the past 10-20 years, browsing has worked as if there were not a DNT signal. So clearly "default off" is not "just as arbitrary". Yahoo is right.

My opinion is that _any_ setting that has not been chosen by the user is arbitrary. I understand your opinion, however.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#22

Post by ktsmith »

tvladeck wrote: post #17
ktsmith wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They key thing to understand is that if IE10 did not have DNT enabled, that the default setting would be _just as arbitrary_ and would still therefore not "map to user intent" in their words. There has to be a default in one direction or the other. The default is to send a null value in the header meaning that no intent has been expressed, that's not arbitrary. > That, and many users will use IE10 knowing that it sh…

> The default is to send a null value in the header meaning that no intent has been expressed, that's not arbitrary. My statement that there has to be a default in "one direction or the other" is clearly wrong, as you've indicated. I would still argue that a null value is arbitrary and does not map to the user's wishes. My opinion is that having it 'on' is no more or less arbitrary than having no wishes expressed.

> I would still argue that a null value is arbitrary and does not map to the user's wishes.

It's not arbitrary though, it clearly spells out that the browser vendor doesn't know what the users intent it.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#23

Post by jfoster »

jlarocco wrote: post #15
ktsmith wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about DNT is that the advertising industry (not malicious/shady websites) are supportive of it as a voluntary standard that they will comply with it. All the major players are saying they won't play nicely with IE10 due to the default on flag instead of a default null (no intent expressed) flag.

In other words meaning they're not going to support it... "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" is not really supporting DNT. It really shows they're business model depends on people being computer illiterate. And now that DNT is on by default they're revolting because they know few people will ever go out of their way to opt-in and get tracked.

One could also argue that Microsoft is not being pragmatic in expecting these companies to continue to honour it if it is on by default. At least when it is off by default, it will be honoured if a user opts to turn it on.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#24

Post by gergles »

ktsmith wrote: post #6
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Anyone who reads the default settings summary in the OOBE (out-of-box experience) in Windows 8 will be aware it's enabled.

In other words, almost no one will know. The thing is most people don't take the time to read those things they just click through blindly.

Yet somehow software developers are quick to screech that users agreed to 'license agreements' that have the same weight, right? (Words on a screen that everyone just 'clicks through blindly'.)

You can't have it both ways. Either having something show up and clicking next manifests consent or it doesn't. IE is extremely clear that DNT will be turned on and lets you opt out of doing so. Users are expressing intent by using the default settings; it isn't like it's a hidden default that they don't tell anyone about.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#25

Post by ben0x539 »

I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that users intend to not be tracked by the very large number of third parties they are involuntarily exposed to on the web.

Yahoo are resorting to this whole buzzword-laden meaningless rhetoric around ~user experience~ and ~value proposition~. That just reinforces the impression that the only reason anyone was prepared to go along with DNT was that they assumed that 99% of users weren't going to be in a position to express their ~user intent~ to not be tracked. Since, you know, most people have better things to do than to learn how to teach their computer about obvious preferences like "please don't spy on me".

Microsoft is simply making the benefits of the DNT scheme more accessible to its users. It's pretty telling that Yahoo is already backpedaling from respecting the users' intent, faced with the possibility that more than an insignificant fraction of users might actually be enabled to benefit from DNT by this decision.

(Edit: Personally I think rather than squabbling about DNT, browser vendors should be taking much more aggressive, technical steps to make tracking users harder, instead of having a default configuration that stops just short of transmitting the user's SSN via request header. Disabling features like user agent and referer headers for and quickly discarding cookies from untrusted (by individual user "intent", not based on SSL certs or anything) hosts would be a start.)

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#26

Post by tvladeck »

ktsmith wrote: post #22
tvladeck wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The default is to send a null value in the header meaning that no intent has been expressed, that's not arbitrary. My statement that there has to be a default in "one direction or the other" is clearly wrong, as you've indicated. I would still argue that a null value is arbitrary and does not map to the user's wishes. My opinion is that having it 'on' is no more or less arbitrary than having no wishes expressed.

> I would still argue that a null value is arbitrary and does not map to the user's wishes. It's not arbitrary though, it clearly spells out that the browser vendor doesn't know what the users intent it.

Again, fair point - but then by definition the second clause of my statement is correct - the user's wishes are unknown, so any direction taken is then... arbitrary? :)

At any rate, you seem well-versed in this area, so let me ask you a question: what is the difference the website's behavior between a "null" and a "track me, please" value in the header?

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#27

Post by kevinpet »

leeoniya wrote: post #8

To be honest, i actually don't care if yahoo tracks me on yahoo properties - in fact, i expect them to. What i DO NOT want is for them to track me across the entire internet through injected javascript, iframes and dedicated tracking domains that serve same-origin analytic scripts from hundreds of sites - that is unethical. Currently using adblock plus, noscript and ghostery on my FF setup with specific additional co…

This comment is pretty irrelevant to the question of DNT defaults.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#28

Post by salmanapk »

theevocater wrote: post #16
Dylan16807 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>people celebrated Microsoft's decision They did? I didn't see any do that.

strange. maybe i read too much reddit :(

MS clearly tried to kill(intentionally or stupidly, idk) the whole DNT thing and those fools were celebrating it.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#29

Post by jlarocco »

ktsmith wrote: post #20
jlarocco wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words meaning they're not going to support it... "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" is not really supporting DNT. It really shows they're business model depends on people being computer illiterate. And now that DNT is on by default they're revolting because they know few people will ever go out of their way to opt-in and get tracked.

> "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" No, they are only going to support it if it is _actually_ the users intent, not a vendors intent. This is completely reasonable and the actions of MS are undermining the efforts to get this voluntary standard going. Keep in mind, DNT is completely voluntary.

One could just as easily argue that a user should only be tracked if it's their explicit intent to be tracked, in which case DNT should be on unless the user turns it off. That makes more sense to me, and I think a lot of people would agree. Obviously, Microsoft thinks that should be the case.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#30

Post by donohoe »

I left this as a comment on their blog which I assume will never be approved:

  "We fundamentally believe that the online 
  experience is better when it is personalized"
Um, doing so is not impeded by DNT as that does not relate to ads. That a bit of a white-lie to imply that it is they way you've worded that first paragraph.

  "It basically means that the DNT signal 
  from IE10 doesn’t express user intent."
Actually I think it does - you think your average person on the street wants targeted ads? Seriously - who is writing this.

  "In principle, we support “Do Not Track” (DNT)"
In principle China, Syria, Iran etc support Human Rights...

  "Ultimately, we believe that DNT must map to 
  user intent — not to the intent of one 
  browser creator, plug-in writer, or third-
  party software service."
Again - seriously - what reality are you apart of?

I had hoped for a Yahoo turn-around of sorts, I really did. You've lost me.

Post reply on HN