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

121–130 of 179 posts

Re: Do_not_track

#121

Post by jampekka »

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.

No-one is too absolute, but could ne used as a rough rule of thumb.

Depending on the study, 0.16% to 7% want to get tracked.

https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2025-07/Pay_or_Okay_Repo...

Re: Do_not_track

#122

Post by pseudalopex »

mmooss wrote: post #45
LocalH wrote: 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.

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…

Global Privacy Control replaced Do Not Track.

Re: Do_not_track

#123

Post by d2p »

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.

> 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.

It could also be used to prevent showing an opt-in notification at all even in software that requires opt-in.

Re: Do_not_track

#124

Post by sneak »

Hi. I’m the one who made consoledonottrack.com (now expired and squatted) and originally specified and promoted this.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200613155957/https://consoledo...

I abandoned the project. Opting out of telemetry tells developers that opting us in automatically without consent is OK. It’s not.

Spyware is spyware even if it has an off switch.

Patch it out. Fork it. Don’t use spyware. Name and shame developers that accept pay checks to build spyware for corporations. Make it an economically bad choice to accept such jobs by poisoning the google results for the names of people who do this. Make them ashamed.

The one thing you DON’T want to do is validate their unethical model by opting out when you never opted in.

Re: Do_not_track

#125

Post by sneak »

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?

They expose to the developer that someone was using their software behind that IP address at that time. It also can frequently include private information. The events that occur on my computer are mine and do not belong to the developer of the software.

Re: Do_not_track

#126

Post by sneak »

latexr wrote: post #72

Same thing has been suggested a few years ago and it went nowhere. https://web.archive.org/web/20200613155957/https://consoledo...

It didn’t go nowhere; a few projects implemented it. The philosophical basis was wrong, though.

Opt out should not be encouraged via an off switch. It should be eradicated, and the people who accepted money to write such malware should be plainly named so that such actions can be part of their professional reputation.

Re: Do_not_track

#127

Post by mkl »

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.

No, it's set in your command shell (e.g. bash) and tells CLI programs that support it to not connect to a server. It has nothing to do with browsers or ads. This is all very clear in the article.

Re: Do_not_track

#128

Post by varispeed »

pseudalopex wrote: post #74
varispeed wrote: post #15

Default opt-in tracking should be illegal and enforced with such fines and prison sentences, that companies wouldn't even dare to have anything remotely capable of tracking in the runtime. Unfortunately big corporations can always find away to make regulators see no problem.

> Default opt-in This is called opt out.

Yeah, I always mix it up. Thank you!

Re: Do_not_track

#129

Post by wilkystyle »

0123456789ABCDE wrote: post #112
dylan604 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

how is this relevant?

Not the person you are replying to, but I had the same thought come to mind. Every library and app seems to have its own way of disabling telemetry. In order for a unified way to actually result in unification, everyone has to sign onto it. Otherwise you now have DO_NOT_TRACK=1 for everyone who respects it in addition to all of the existing ways for everyone who does not respect it.

Re: Do_not_track

#130

Post by OptionX »

If any org had any use for telemetry they'd have no incentive into to adhere to something that would make it easier for users to opt-out. In fact that thee whole reason you have to opt-out instead of opt-in in the first place.

Its an ok solution, but will never be implement and doing it actively goes against the interest of those who would have to do implement it.

Post reply on HN