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

Do_not_track

donottrack.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 179 posts

Re: Do_not_track

#101

Post by _flux »

I always choose to go with positive terms with variables etc, so this would then be ALLOW_TRACKING=0. It brings in some consistence and makes it easier to reason, as you get to avoid double negation.

Perhaps the "DO NOT TRACK" name is somewhat of an established term, though.

Re: Do_not_track

#102

Post by jamietanna »

Ichaelus wrote: post #99
jamietanna wrote: post #48

Was wondering if there was a list of known opt outs as we are looking at a default opt out in Renovate[0] - we'll also look to set `DO_NOT_TRACK` [0]: https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate/discussions/42932

Here is a non comprehensive list of mine: https://makandracards.com/makandra/624560-disable-telemetry-...

Ooh thanks!

Re: Do_not_track

#103

Post by sandeepkd »

A GLOBAL do not track on the browsers works largely cause the target is all the websites being browsed and the tracking associated with it for advertising purposes. However telemetry is altogether a different thing, blocking it by default can be one idea, however using one standard variable to express the intent for all the tools is not practically viable

Re: Do_not_track

#104

Post by 47282847 »

stavros wrote: post #17

Honest question, what's the problem with crash dumps that include no personal info? They just help make the software less buggy. I also don't see an issue with anonymized usage patterns (this feature was used X times this month, this one Y times, etc). Can someone expound on what they see as a problem?

Anyone on the path potentially learns something about your system and your software use.

Your IP during connection exposes your rough location.

Crash logs rarely are completely anonymized so both together can additionally serve as a way to re-identify the user.

The only way to properly transmit telemetry data would be Tor. And no, even then I don’t want my tools to report back my use. It’s simply not required, and data minimization is part of my set of ethics, and I’m happy that EU/GDPR sees it the same way. Not all data that you think is worth something to you is morally right to collect. You send data somewhere, even just to check for updates - ask me first. I do not want my hammer to report back how many nails I hammered in. I don’t want my software to reach out to the world without my consent.

Re: Do_not_track

#106

Post by sersi »

While we wait for companies to very very slowly implement that proposal, is there a place that collects in one place all the opt out methods for most common tools in one place? Perhaps even a shell module that sets them and regularly updates its list?

Re: Do_not_track

#108

Post by FrauElster »

_flux wrote: post #101

I always choose to go with positive terms with variables etc, so this would then be ALLOW_TRACKING=0 . It brings in some consistence and makes it easier to reason, as you get to avoid double negation. Perhaps the "DO NOT TRACK" name is somewhat of an established term, though.

One could also implement ALLOW_TRACKING as comma separated list for applications I choose to allow it. Say I would like to share telemetry with go and brew, but not aws and the rest ALLOW_TRACKING=go,brew

Re: Do_not_track

#109

Post by Jaxan »

xigoi wrote: post #84
Gigachad wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They are told to believe that.
Post reply on HN