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

111–120 of 179 posts

Re: Do_not_track

#111

Post by _flux »

FrauElster wrote: post #108
_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

..and what kind of tracking, e.g. anonymous usage statistics vs update checks, e.g.

  *:analytics=1:google_analytics=0,syncthing:upgrade=1
The specification could go on and on!

Re: Do_not_track

#113

Post by PunchyHamster »

The reason browser's DNT header failed is that they don't want to user to turn off tracking by default

The reason they will not adopt common env is that because they do not want it to be easy to turn off

Re: Do_not_track

#114

Post by PunchyHamster »

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.

and yet if they had question prompted to them even most of them would click "no"

Re: Do_not_track

#115

Post by AndyMcConachie »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #113

The reason browser's DNT header failed is that they don't want to user to turn off tracking by default The reason they will not adopt common env is that because they do not want it to be easy to turn off

The reason the DNT header failed is because there is no way to enforce it. The browser can set the flag, but there's no way to ensure it's actually respected. There are no protocol police.

Re: Do_not_track

#118

Post by maccard »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #114
xigoi wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one _wants_ to be tracked Plenty of people seem to genuinely believe that “personalized ads” are good for them.

and yet if they had question prompted to them even most of them would click "no"

No, they don’t. They will click whichever option gets the modal out of the way.

Re: Do_not_track

#119

Post by tdeck »

thephyber wrote: post #64
charles_f wrote: post #60

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 article is about local desktop / CLI tools that collect telemetry, not the web browser "do not track" standard.

Re: Do_not_track

#120

Post by lee_ars »

thephyber wrote: post #64
charles_f wrote: post #60

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…

> This flag is sent by my browser when I connect to SOMEONE ELSE’s SERVER.

...and promptly, thoroughly ignored.

Post reply on HN