Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track" • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by ben0x539 » Sat, Oct 27, 2012, 1:08 AM UTC

jrajav wrote: post #41

powertower wrote: post #19

> Recently, Microsoft unilaterally decided to turn on DNT in Internet Explorer 10 by default, rather than at users’ direction. > It basically means that the DNT signal from IE10 doesn’t express user intent. Blatantly false. Not only are you presented with the option to turn off DNT on first use (that takes up the entire screen), but I'd imagine users would choose to have advertisers track them about 1-10% of the time…

I also did a double-take on that first sentence you quoted. I'm pretty sure I read earlier that they will be prompting first-time users on what their preference will be, and that the "default" basically just means which position that switch will be in when the choice is presented. However, I did some quick fact-checking and I couldn't find anything to back that up; if you don't mind, where did you find that IE10 pres…

I had the same reaction. I found [1], which seems consistent with what I remembered.

[1]: http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...

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

#52

Post by patrickmay » Sat, Oct 27, 2012, 1:09 AM UTC

ben0x539 wrote: post #25

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…

> I think rather than squabbling about DNT, browser vendors should be taking much more aggressive, technical steps to make tracking users harder

Exactly. Do Not Track is unenforceable. We need Cannot Track.

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

#53

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 27, 2012, 1:15 AM UTC

[deleted]

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

#54

Post by ajays » Sat, Oct 27, 2012, 1:19 AM UTC

The only reason Microsoft is making DNT the default is because it will directly impact Google's bottom line (and Microsoft loses money in its online division, so they won't hurt as much). Since when did Microsoft really start caring about the users?

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

#55

Post by grannyg00se » Sat, Oct 27, 2012, 1:22 AM UTC

ben0x539 wrote: post #25

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…

Curious, what's your beef with user-agent?

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

#56

Post by DufusM » Sat, Oct 27, 2012, 1:29 AM UTC

ben0x539 wrote: post #25

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…

While it is reasonable to assume a user's intent, it is also reasonable to assume a content publisher's intent to monetize their content. An advertising-funded web is the reality of today, unless Microsoft is proposing a radical change in this model.

The concept of Do Not Track, despite the emotional appeal of the name, essentially seems to be a compromise between privacy and advertising, keeping the advertising-based model intact while also allowing the extremely privacy focused (minority set of) individuals to have things their way.

Turning DNT on by default is a hardline approach and violates the spirit of this compromise. Instead, there needs to be more effort to constructively work with content providers, privacy advocates and advertisers to come up with a more explicit protocol that satisfies everyone's interests.

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

#57

Post by Steko » Sat, Oct 27, 2012, 1:57 AM UTC

Am I mistaken or did the FTC not just fine Google $22.5 million over the exact same behavior for a considerably smaller share of web users.

If I'm Microsoft I am making a very public appeal to the FTC over this Monday morning. $22.5 million is a lot more money to Y! than Google. And as wary as consumers are of Microsoft long term they've got to degrade the Google/Firefox brand to start gaining any traction. Why not go full bore on tracking/creepiness?

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

#58

Post by thematt » Sat, Oct 27, 2012, 2:01 AM UTC

patrickmay wrote: post #52

ben0x539 wrote: post #25

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…

> I think rather than squabbling about DNT, browser vendors should be taking much more aggressive, technical steps to make tracking users harder Exactly. Do Not Track is unenforceable. We need Cannot Track.

You already have it. Use the following Chrome extensions: NoScript, AdBlock, Ghostery and Do Not Track Plus.

There's no sense in relying in any of the large companies to voluntarily give up ad revenue, you need to take matters in to your own hands.

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

#59

Post by netcan » Sat, Oct 27, 2012, 2:02 AM UTC

donohoe wrote: post #30

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…

Both side are playing an Orwellian game, pretending they are concerned with users intentions & desires when in reality both are assuming that users have no intents and desires coherent enough to act on.

They are fighting over the default because they know that in 95% of cases, the default is all that matters.

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

#60

Post by qxcv » Sat, Oct 27, 2012, 2:04 AM UTC

grannyg00se wrote: post #55

ben0x539 wrote: post #25

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…

Curious, what's your beef with user-agent?

Two problems with UA strings:

1) They can often be used to identify you, especially when combined with other HTTP headers or information scraped from the client via JS[0].

2) They are abused by web developers who wish to lock out web browsers that they do not support. This is generally considered to be against the spirit of the web, though is sometimes useful for optimising page load times (for example, not sending IE conditional comments to all browsers).

[0]: https://panopticlick.eff.org/