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

Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

windowsreport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 270 posts

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#101

Post by kube-system »

autoexec wrote: post #63
n144q wrote: post #22

About time. It has never achieved anything meaningful for protecting your privacy, if not helping the opposite by providing yet another signal to help uniquely identify a user and improve tracking. Although, anti-tracking in general is basically fighting a losing battle. Go to https://amiunique.org/ and you'll see why. I use Firefox with all possible protection mechanics -- "strict" tracking protection mode, uBlock o…

> Although, anti-tracking in general is basically fighting a losing battle. Go to https://amiunique.org/ and you'll see why. The goal shouldn't be to appear non-unique. There are too many little things that will out you. Even if you somehow account for every single one of them today your next browser update could enable more and you can't trust that amiunique.org is looking at every identifying data point either. It'…

> Even better if you have JS disabled by default and sites can't collect 90% of the data points your browser exposes at all.

There's two gigantic issues with that:

1. Most websites won't work

2. Most people like websites to work, and so they have JS turned on. If you don't, you'll stick out like a sore thumb.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#102

Post by darkhorse222 »

coldpie wrote: post #91
gkoberger wrote: post #67

I was at Mozilla when this was implemented. It was completely optional for websites to support this. A few did at first. A lot of people internally wanted it to be on-by-default, but the argument was that if it was, nobody would respect it – after all, what tracking platform would willingly only track the 0.1% of people who went into the settings to enable it? (Internet Explorer did eventually enable it by default, w…

> I would love if the cookie modals on each site became browser-level They are, in a roundabout way. Hop into your uBlock Origin settings and enable the Cookie Banners and Annoyances filters. The modal gets silently nuked in the background and you can carry on with your browsing. Since you never consented, this ought to be functionally the same as Declining the banner. The Kill Sticky bookmark works similarly, for cr…

As long as someone who does this is prepared to pay for every site they do it on (or forgo the site in the future), since targeted advertising often pays for the site they're visiting. Personally I would like to see ads improved, not removed, as I am unwilling to have 40 different subscriptions to 40 different websites all because every user disabled targeting.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#103

Post by danaris »

gkoberger wrote: post #67

I was at Mozilla when this was implemented. It was completely optional for websites to support this. A few did at first. A lot of people internally wanted it to be on-by-default, but the argument was that if it was, nobody would respect it – after all, what tracking platform would willingly only track the 0.1% of people who went into the settings to enable it? (Internet Explorer did eventually enable it by default, w…

> but ultimately killed the feature since everyone stopped respecting it

I genuinely doubt that anything could have caused them to respect it. Tracking without consent is the source of their money; they're not going to give that up just because you give a positive signal that you do not consent, rather than simply never asking you in the first place.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#104

Post by coldpie »

darkhorse222 wrote: post #102
coldpie wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would love if the cookie modals on each site became browser-level They are, in a roundabout way. Hop into your uBlock Origin settings and enable the Cookie Banners and Annoyances filters. The modal gets silently nuked in the background and you can carry on with your browsing. Since you never consented, this ought to be functionally the same as Declining the banner. The Kill Sticky bookmark works similarly, for cr…

As long as someone who does this is prepared to pay for every site they do it on (or forgo the site in the future), since targeted advertising often pays for the site they're visiting. Personally I would like to see ads improved, not removed, as I am unwilling to have 40 different subscriptions to 40 different websites all because every user disabled targeting.

> Personally I would like to see ads improved

Sure, sounds good. When you win that fight, let me know and I'll reconsider the ad blocker.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#105

Post by ganzuul »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #82
ganzuul wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of entities out there that assume consent.

Isn't this the entire point of browsewrapped TOS "agreements"? There's a reason why specifically tracking via cookies had to be singled out by regulation to work at all (putting aside how well or not well this actually works).

I doubt it? Stuff only works because we can't punch each other over the internet.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#106

Post by kube-system »

sebazzz wrote: post #78

DNT was dead the moment some web browsers enabled it by default. No regular user will uncheck this setting, buried in a settings screen.

DNT was dead even when web browsers didn't enabled it by default. No regular user did check that setting, buried in a settings screen.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#107

Post by darkhorse222 »

coldpie wrote: post #104
darkhorse222 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as someone who does this is prepared to pay for every site they do it on (or forgo the site in the future), since targeted advertising often pays for the site they're visiting. Personally I would like to see ads improved, not removed, as I am unwilling to have 40 different subscriptions to 40 different websites all because every user disabled targeting.

> Personally I would like to see ads improved Sure, sounds good. When you win that fight, let me know and I'll reconsider the ad blocker.

I doubt it. In my experience those that block ads feel entitled to the content without payment of any kind. They see ads as an intrusion rather than a fair exchange. No, I don't see you turning it back on regardless of how things go.

The average user doesn't even recognize that running a website literally cost electricity that must be paid for. Who pays for it? Who will carry the boats?

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#108

Post by dylan604 »

sedatk wrote: post #69
dylan604 wrote: post #42

I think the browser should behave differently when Do Not Track is enabled. Instead of whatever it does now, it should be updated so that when the user selects it the browser automatically installs uBO, privacy badger, etc. After all, that's what the user really needs to have the browser respect their wishes of not being tracked. So rather than eliminate it with another thing that is nothing more than a name changes,…

That already exists in forms of privacy protection settings on browsers. DNT was a very specific feature. Privacy protections were not removed, DNT was removed.

I think you are intentionally missing the gist of the post, but here goes anyways. DNT was a very clear signal by the user that nobody respected. So instead of accepting it being useless and throwing it away, just change how the browser behaves when the user enables the option by updating the browser in a way that will actually prevent tracking.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#109

Post by coldpie »

darkhorse222 wrote: post #107
coldpie wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Personally I would like to see ads improved Sure, sounds good. When you win that fight, let me know and I'll reconsider the ad blocker.

I doubt it. In my experience those that block ads feel entitled to the content without payment of any kind. They see ads as an intrusion rather than a fair exchange. No, I don't see you turning it back on regardless of how things go. The average user doesn't even recognize that running a website literally cost electricity that must be paid for. Who pays for it? Who will carry the boats?

I pay literally hundreds of dollars a month to various content creators (eg Ars Technica, several local news outlets, many creators on Patreon, YouTube Premium) so kindly bugger off with your moralizing, thanks. I want browsing the web to not suck, so I use the tools I need to do that. If they want me to stop using these tools, they can make browsing the web not suck without them.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#110

Post by autoexec »

kube-system wrote: post #101
autoexec wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although, anti-tracking in general is basically fighting a losing battle. Go to https://amiunique.org/ and you'll see why. The goal shouldn't be to appear non-unique. There are too many little things that will out you. Even if you somehow account for every single one of them today your next browser update could enable more and you can't trust that amiunique.org is looking at every identifying data point either. It'…

> Even better if you have JS disabled by default and sites can't collect 90% of the data points your browser exposes at all. There's two gigantic issues with that: 1. Most websites won't work 2. Most people like websites to work, and so they have JS turned on. If you don't, you'll stick out like a sore thumb.

You'd be surprised at how many websites work just fine with JS disabled, at least in terms of providing the content you want. Menus/navigation might not work, and I wouldn't even attempt online shopping without JS, but enough websites still manage to display basic text and images without JS that it's a surprising annoyance when they fail to.

Sticking out like a sore thumb isn't a problem as long as you look like a different person's sore thumb to the next website.

Post reply on HN