61–70 of 113 posts
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…
The very fact that the website must support DNT is its only and fatal flaw. Why should we trust websites to honor DNT when we keep sharing information with them?
DNT is a pointless 8 bytes that has no real, enforceable meaning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But you don't have a right to say what runs on my computer, or make it tell you what I'm doing. This is where our perceived rights collide. You already have control over this. That doesn't contradict someones right to track how people use the site. > No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules. And again, you already have control over this. However, if you give data to a remote server, they have the right to use…
>> You already have control over this. That doesn't contradict someones right to track how people use the site. >> And again, you already have control over this. However, if you give data to a remote server, they have the right to use that data. You are, in fact, giving them that data. I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. The post I replied to says that they have a right to run tracking scripts and I don't ha…
Yep, I saw that. Maybe it's just my interpretation. I thought of that as saying "I have the right to have scripts that track you." Not "I have the right to require that you run those scripts." So, they can provide the scripts, you can just choose to not have them run.
That's where I am coming from, and I don't get that anyone is trying to take that part away from you. That's all =)
Do Not Track is silly. For example: You come on to my site, I want to know how you're using it, I don't want your personal details, I just want to see how you're interacting with the site I've made for you. Why do I want to know? Well it depends on the purpose of the site, but for the most part it is so that I can optimise and improve what my site offers to you and others. But you've politely requested that I don't t…
>> I have a right to track how people use my site. But you don't have a right to say what runs on my computer, or make it tell you what I'm doing. This is where our perceived rights collide. >> once you've made that choice you are within my domain, under my roof, living by my rules. No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules. >> People get way too offended by analytics tracking when it's there for their benefit.…
> But you don't have a right to say what runs on my computer, or make it tell you what I'm doing. This is where our perceived rights collide.
Exactly! But you also don't have the right to tell him not to send tracking info either. You do, however, have the right not to execute it. For instance NoScript, Ghostery,and AdBlock+ will prevent the requests for this content from being made and executed.
> No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules.
I think OP meant that once you make a request to his server, his server is free to do what it wants with that request. I agree with this line of thought because most if not all others are silly.
> No, people get offended when you try to turn their computer into a device that spies on them. And we get more offended that this sort of stuff happens without most people even being aware its going on. They may or may not object to it, but right now they don't even know.
Again, you have the ability to not let your computer send these types of requests for special analytics packages &c. You can't possibly believe that his storing access logs is wrong.
> This is about the only thing we agree on. It's pointless and it was never going to achieve anything.
Hear! Hear!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably a discussion I would prefer us to have offline but the gist of it is that as a nascent industry, we have to make strides towards self-regulation very quickly. The NAI knows about the dangers lurking ahead. Overregulation is not a bogeyman. It is a real threat. DNT is good for us. We don't want to track someone who explicitly does not want to be tracked (boo, Microsoft IE team!)
Can't an IE user turn tracking on if they want to?
Does the poster expect the web server to not write a log line because he sent a DNT header too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It's nowhere near as simple as that, either in theory or in practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't an IE user turn tracking on if they want to?
As far as I know, DNT was designed to be a tri-state with { NoPreference, On, Off. NoPreference is the default. If it is turned on by default, what would NoPreference mean?
In the end, Microsoft made the decision to force it into a yes/no, rather than leaving it at "NoPreference". I can fully see the argument that Microsoft is not following the spirit of the standard in doing so.
"Do not track" in its present (non-)state is a farce. It should be implemented at the browser level. My ideas on DNT: If a user specifies "do not track" in their browser-global or site-specific settings then ALL requests to third party domains should simply be blocked. This could be backed up by a site-provided manifest (potentially containing a comment for each ones justification, or a flag to say if its required or…
> ALL requests to third party domains should simply be blocked. It's too late to do that. There's lots of websites relying on 3rd party CDNs for non-tracking purposes (CloudFront, Google-hosted jQuery, etc.) Filtering on domain name alone won't prevent traffic from going through 3rd parties — tracking companies can ask websites to set up DNS CNAME for them or they'll use top-level HTTP redirects (like google.com uses…
Undoubtedly - hence the site-defined manifests for third parties.