Live data from Hacker News

Do_not_track

donottrack.sh

81–90 of 179 posts

Re: Do_not_track

#81
post #21
post #4

It's probably easier to run your own DNS and blacklist the offending domains. There are good blacklists with millions of telemetry domains, e.g. https://github.com/hagezi/dns-blocklists .

That is the correct way of handling this. Everyone proclaiming a "standard" is just adding to the long list of (unofficial) alternatives.

obligatory: https://xkcd.com/927/

Re: Do_not_track

#83

It'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…

> The internet only took off because the primary business model which ran on ads

No? It took off before advertising was widespread as a primary or sole funding business model? Also there's literally nothing about advertising that requires data collection about users. Sure they love to do it, and they might even believe that it helps their profits in some way. But it's not inherent, they got along just fine with billboards and newspaper classifieds. TV ads never required personal information. Not did pre roll cinema ads, or radio adverts. Nobody was bemoaning in the streets that they couldn't possibly find anything to buy

Re: Do_not_track

#84
post #24

Earlier 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.

There's an inherent conflict. No one _wants_ to be tracked, there is no direct benefit to being tracked and only downsides. And advertisers want to track you. So there was no way to respect the flag other than making it obscure so only a few dedicated people turned it on.

> No one _wants_ to be tracked

Plenty of people seem to genuinely believe that “personalized ads” are good for them.

Re: Do_not_track

#85
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lately, I've come across websites that instead of a cookie banner display a banner that states they recognize and honor my wish to not be tracked. Whether that really do or not is something I did not spend time looking into. The first time I saw it I thought it was a fluke, and then it happened a few more times with in a short time period. Couldn't tell you what sites they were though as it was just something from se…

Wow. I've never seen that. It would be great if it became more widespread.

But isn't DNT deprecated in most browsers? Maybe I misremember.

Re: Do_not_track

#86
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s already a law in Europe. GDPR and ePrivacy. You have to get consent from the user. Having worked for European companies, they take it seriously.

The assumption that telemetry is not allowed by GDPR is flawed https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/

Anonymous telemetry is allowed – and I don’t have a problem with that.

Re: Do_not_track

#87
post #24

Earlier 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.

There's an inherent conflict. No one _wants_ to be tracked, there is no direct benefit to being tracked and only downsides. And advertisers want to track you. So there was no way to respect the flag other than making it obscure so only a few dedicated people turned it on.

To play devils advocate there is a direct benefit to being tracked, at least theoretically search and ads will more relevant to you. I get no one wants ads but you do see ads here and there. It would arguably be better for you if everyone of them was relevant than not. Similarly search or even LLM answers could be better if the preferences of the asker are known

No, in not making excuses for tracking and I do lots of stuff myself of avoid being tracked

I’m only responding to the false premise that there are no benefits. There are. You can just choose to believe they aren’t worth the cost. I believe they aren’t but I have friends who opt into all tracking and even register their presence with multiple apps. They believe they’ll make more positive connections

Re: Do_not_track

#88
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lately, I've come across websites that instead of a cookie banner display a banner that states they recognize and honor my wish to not be tracked. Whether that really do or not is something I did not spend time looking into. The first time I saw it I thought it was a fluke, and then it happened a few more times with in a short time period. Couldn't tell you what sites they were though as it was just something from se…

Just here to say yeah, I've seen this more of this lately- "The do-not-track signal has been followed" or somesuch.

Re: Do_not_track

#89
post #86
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assumption that telemetry is not allowed by GDPR is flawed https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/

Anonymous telemetry is allowed – and I don’t have a problem with that.

Unfortunately there's no such thing as anonymous telemetry. There are multiple techniques to re-identify scrubbed data, and some [seemingly innocuous] data is inherently identifying.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/24/researchers-spotlight-the-... | https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/11/debunking-myth-anonymo...

Re: Do_not_track

#90

It'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…

You’re confusing the Internet with Google.
Post reply on HN