[dead]
Do_not_track
61–70 of 179 posts
Re: Do_not_track
#62This does not make sense to support. Businesses that have proper privacy controls and security do not want to be lumped together with random shady apps and want users to explicitly opt out. Another issue with this header is that users could set it and then accidentally opt out of other sharing that they don't realize since this header is being set somewhere random. Standardizing on a per app basis way to revoke consent, along with showing privacy polices and measures the apps have put in place for guarding security would be a more sensible alternative that could gain traction.
Re: Do_not_track
#63I'm sure this will be about as effective as putting yourself on the do not call list for domestic phone telemarketers, which has absolutely no effect whatsoever on overseas scam call centers.
Re: Do_not_track
#64It's interesting that we're so used to be tracked at this point that no one balks at being opted-in by default. A flag called DO_NOT_TRACK sounds like a good idea, but also suggests the default is CONSENT_TO_TRACK=1, and I find that creepy.
Do not track WHEN?
This flag is sent by my browser when I connect to SOMEONE ELSE’s SERVER.
The internet only took off because the primary business model which ran on ads and derivative information that servers do to their users.
It’s not fun. It’s not private or secure. It’s not illegal (in most jurisdictions for most industries). The flag exists as a response to the de facto and de jure state of the world, not some fairytale scenario.
Re: Do_not_track
#65No, it should be a required (by law) opt-in TRACK_ME_I_DO_NOT_CARE_OR_AM_A_TEAPOT=418. The proposed way just normalizes tracking.
And setting that env var should require a notarized consent to track contract that has an expiration of at most 60 days and has penalties of jail time for any data related to that telemetry, anonymized or not that is shared with a third party, for any reason, including but not limited to fulfilling the service the business purports to be providing.
It should be much more difficult to collect data than to opt out of collection.
Re: Do_not_track
#66Love the idea but is an env var enough. Are there some sessions (docker?) that may not get it.
I'd prefer TRACK_ME as an opt in.
Re: Do_not_track
#67It's interesting that we're so used to be tracked at this point that no one balks at being opted-in by default. A flag called DO_NOT_TRACK sounds like a good idea, but also suggests the default is CONSENT_TO_TRACK=1, and I find that creepy.
Do not track WHEN? This flag is sent by my browser when I connect to SOMEONE ELSE’s SERVER. The internet only took off because the primary business model which ran on ads and derivative information that servers do to their users. It’s not fun. It’s not private or secure. It’s not illegal (in most jurisdictions for most industries). The flag exists as a response to the de facto and de jure state of the world, not some…
Article quite literally talks about tracking of cli tools you run on your own computer, half of which are to pilot products that you pay with your own money.
Get off your high horse.
Re: Do_not_track
#68It feels like this should be no_track, for consistency with no_color
Re: Do_not_track
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do not track WHEN? This flag is sent by my browser when I connect to SOMEONE ELSE’s SERVER. The internet only took off because the primary business model which ran on ads and derivative information that servers do to their users. It’s not fun. It’s not private or secure. It’s not illegal (in most jurisdictions for most industries). The flag exists as a response to the de facto and de jure state of the world, not some…
Article quite literally talks about tracking of cli tools you run on your own computer, half of which are to pilot products that you pay with your own money. Get off your high horse.
I would advocate for not getting your horse high to begin with, or hide your stash better.
Re: Do_not_track
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Advertisers chose to ignore DNT because they claimed Microsoft making DNT enabled by default took agency away from the user. In reality, they probably weren't going to honor it anyway.
Microsoft is too sophisticated to plead ignorance; they are responsible for that outcome and I think we can assume they knowningly chose it. (Though now Microsoft browsers are such a small portion of the market that it doesn't matter.) The biggest failure of DNT was browser makers - including Mozilla - removing it. It has zero performance impact (1 bit?) or development cost. As long as it was out there, when there wa…
> advocates had evidence of both demand for privacy and of trackers ignoring user wishes.
This evidence both still exists and is also completely useless for anything. The more important consideration, by far, is that the DNT flag was actively harmful to users in the real world because, if it was acknowledged at all, it was used maliciously to help fingerprint and track users. There is no reason for browsers to continue providing to their users a toggle that not only misleads them about what will happen with the setting enabled, but actively contributes to the opposite outcome because we live in a world where being evil is the norm.