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

Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

bugzilla.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#51

Post by a3n »

jasonlotito wrote: post #36
belorn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See comment 16. The bug report is not about the legal contractual agreement between Google and Mozilla, but rather about user expectation from a "do not track me" option. Some users, maybe faulty or silly, consider a "do not track me" option to simply mean, do not track me. It doesn't mater if Google sign a service contract that Mozilla pays $150k/year. "Do not track me" means, do not track me. It doesn't matter if G…

Something to consider. In Firefox, the DNT options have a Learn More link that answers the question: "Do Not Track is a feature in Firefox that allows you to let a website know you would like to opt-out of third-party tracking for purposes including behavioral advertising. It does this by transmitting a Do Not Track HTTP header every time your data is requested from the Web." While you can debate whether that's the a…

Then rather than call it "Do not track," it should be called something like "Do not allow third party tracking."

When in doubt about naming something, name it what it is.

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#52

Post by nly »

eli wrote: post #19
ronaldx wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. If you choose to send an e-mail newsletter to your users, you should (at least) be obliged to provide an unsubscribe option - providing two different experiences. If you choose to track your users, you should (at least) be obliged to assume that DNT users have opted-out of this tracking and be responsible for not tracking them.

That does not seem apples to apples. Should I provide an "opt-out" of all advertising for people who just don't like looking at ads?

> Should I provide an "opt-out" of all advertising for people who just don't like looking at ads?

This isn't about advertising, it's about ad networks tracking users.

You could serve ads from your own domain/server and disclose everything you record and share in your privacy policy?

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#53

Post by 3825 »

Silhouette wrote: post #27
jeremysmyth wrote: post #9

There's a large effective difference between "do not track" as it is outlined in the bug, and how many people see it (see, for example, comment 16 in the report, and then comment 25) Specifically, it's to do with third party cookies, not any particular site. If I visit someone's website, I'm usually perfectly happy for them to record my visit and my actions. If, on the other hand, I visit their website and some invis…

The thing is, Google Analytics (as mentioned in the article) is such a pervasive ubiquitous invisible actor, but it's damn useful, so lots of people want to use it. The problem is that it's a third party object, and it's of massive benefit to Google too, not just the site owner. Several web font services now fall into that category as well. The problem from a user's point of view is that you can block Google Analytic…

Would it satisfy the bug reporter if we show a HTTP 401 unauthorized for anyone who has DNT turned on?

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#54

Post by belorn »

panacea wrote: post #39
belorn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See comment 16. The bug report is not about the legal contractual agreement between Google and Mozilla, but rather about user expectation from a "do not track me" option. Some users, maybe faulty or silly, consider a "do not track me" option to simply mean, do not track me. It doesn't mater if Google sign a service contract that Mozilla pays $150k/year. "Do not track me" means, do not track me. It doesn't matter if G…

Should a distinction be made between "Do not track me " and "Do not track anonymous/aggregate user's paths". Serious question. I think that's what's being suggested here?

The language used is an important part when determining user expectations. its like the old "free phone" advertisement, but which wrote in tiny print in the service contract a monthly fee. That practice is now mostly banned as false advertisement, and good riddance as "free" has a clear definition.

So yes, I think there is a clear distinction between "do not track me" and one that is limited to any specific tracking techniques.

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#55

Post by nullc »

Fice wrote: post #35
clarkevans wrote: post #24

Mozilla uses Google Analytics Premium Service ($150k/year) which includes a contractual option to prevent secondary use of the visitor data. Therefore, they see it as legally in the spirit of Do-Not-Track -- Google is a contractor collecting the visitation data solely for the pleasure of Mozilla. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=858839#c21 https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!search/m... Fr…

These obligations are meaningless unless there is a way to verify compliance.

This has shades of a comparison between security by architecture vs security by agreement/trust:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/tMt7-amcK...

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#57

Post by eli »

nly wrote: post #52
eli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not seem apples to apples. Should I provide an "opt-out" of all advertising for people who just don't like looking at ads?

> Should I provide an "opt-out" of all advertising for people who just don't like looking at ads? This isn't about advertising, it's about ad networks tracking users. You could serve ads from your own domain/server and disclose everything you record and share in your privacy policy?

I'd love to run my own ad server, got any suggestions? Been a little while since I looked, but I only saw extremely expensive "enterprise" ad solutions, crappy open source solutions, and lots and lots of SaaS options.

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#58

Post by bad_user »

michaelgrafl wrote: post #29
bad_user wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like it, don't use it - simple as that. The only thing I find reasonable is for users to be warned that they are tracked, precisely for enabling them to move to alternatives that better respect their wishes. His website is running in your browser by your choice, not his ;-)

If you don't like it, don't let him use it - simple as that.

True, this also works.

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#59

Post by username223 »

3825 wrote: post #53
Silhouette wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, Google Analytics (as mentioned in the article) is such a pervasive ubiquitous invisible actor, but it's damn useful, so lots of people want to use it. The problem is that it's a third party object, and it's of massive benefit to Google too, not just the site owner. Several web font services now fall into that category as well. The problem from a user's point of view is that you can block Google Analytic…

Would it satisfy the bug reporter if we show a HTTP 401 unauthorized for anyone who has DNT turned on?

I'm not the reporter, but I'd be fine with that.

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#60

Post by ronaldx »

Silhouette wrote: post #33
ronaldx wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the EU, the two situations I described are both legal obligations (regarding collection of personal data, the legal obligation is probably stronger than I described). [I have understood that this is not the same in the US and the situation is therefore murky and EU law is not respected on the internet as a whole.] What you described is not a legal obligation, although I personally think you should provide the opti…

In the EU, the two situations I described are both legal obligations What EU law requires a web site to check for and act on DNT?

None: the website requires explicit opt-in permission to collect personal data in the first place, making opt-out DNT largely irrelevant.

e.g. from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/27/time_running_out_for... [Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor] said that the DNT system "although valuable" seemed to "fall short of the" of the requirements for obtaining lawful consent set out in the EU's Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive.

Post reply on HN