IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death
1–10 of 67 posts
Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death
#2An issue sidestepped by this article is whether the statement in the second paragraph is correct:
> ... tech and ad companies who say they comply with Do Not Track could simply ignore the flag set by IE 10 and track those who use that browser.
That doesn't quite work. Web servers don't know what browser is on the other end of a connection. Yes, they know the "User-Agent:" line, but that is not the same thing.
Claiming to follow a privacy standard, but then ignoring it based on a conclusion reached via fallible means, is a bit scary. It strikes me as the beginning of a slippery slope, regardless of what position Microsoft ultimately takes with IE 10.
Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death
#3The whole concept of DNT is just stupid. It's misleading users and won't work.
By telling users you have better privacy simply because your browser adds a random header tag onto requests you're misleading them. Sites have no obligation to obey it and it will give users a false sense of security.
We already have proven, well defined method of DNT already: private browsing. This works by simply removing resources after the session ends. There's no reliance on servers, so it will always work.
Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death
#4Now imagine if Chrome made incognito browsing the default and you had to access a submenu to get a cookie keeper. Disrupt the web!
Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death
#5An issue sidestepped by this article is whether the statement in the second paragraph is correct: > ... tech and ad companies who say they comply with Do Not Track could simply ignore the flag set by IE 10 and track those who use that browser. That doesn't quite work. Web servers don't know what browser is on the other end of a connection. Yes, they know the "User-Agent:" line, but that is not the same thing. Claimin…
So don't forge your headers.
I don't see how this would be slippery at all.
Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death
#6[deleted]
Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death
#7The whole concept of DNT is just stupid. It's misleading users and won't work. By telling users you have better privacy simply because your browser adds a random header tag onto requests you're misleading them. Sites have no obligation to obey it and it will give users a false sense of security. We already have proven, well defined method of DNT already: private browsing. This works by simply removing resources after…
> Sites have no obligation to obey it and it will give users a false sense of security.
Until appropriate legislation comes into play. It worked reasonably well with the Do Not Call lists.
Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death
#8Does the current spec take into account that unscrupulous ISPs (I'm thinking about hotel WiFi in particular) can strip the header before forwarding a request to a server?
Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death
#9Turning on DNT by default is a great way to ensure it will be utterly ignored.
So I quite support the requirement that people explicitly enable it.
Remember the DNT is voluntary - but if everyone does it by default, then there is nothing left to track, so websites will have no interest in paying attention to the flag.
Re: IE10's 'Do-Not-Track' Default Dies Quick Death
#10The whole concept of DNT is just stupid. It's misleading users and won't work. By telling users you have better privacy simply because your browser adds a random header tag onto requests you're misleading them. Sites have no obligation to obey it and it will give users a false sense of security. We already have proven, well defined method of DNT already: private browsing. This works by simply removing resources after…
> Sites have no obligation to obey it and it will give users a false sense of security. Until appropriate legislation comes into play. It worked reasonably well with the Do Not Call lists.
[deleted]