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
131–140 of 179 posts
Re: Do_not_track
#132It'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…
Re: Do_not_track
#133Thankfully, the dotnet package installed by package manager on Arch Linux disables telemetry by default. I left the env set just in case.
But my trust towards "modern" software has lowered. I default to run CLI tools, especially those built in JavaScript or .NET with network disabled:
firejail --net=none
For ilspycmd, for example, I had to defuse its default "update checking" behavior: alias ilspycmd='ilspycmd --disable-updatecheck'
This is what I'd call user-hostile defaults.Re: Do_not_track
#134Earlier 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.
Yes. I know my two thoughts are in conflict, for the advertisers. Too bad for them. Figure it out.
Re: Do_not_track
#135It'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.
Re: Do_not_track
#136I haven't bothered because a) opt-out risks a backlash and b) opt-in affects the data so much it becomes useless (much smaller sample and probably self-selecting a certain type of user)
Skimming the comments here, it seems everybody assumes telemetry is always nefarious. I get the distrust of large corporations and other obvious bad actors - but the blanket cynicism for all telemetry here is kinda surprising. Have none of the developers here ever had a need for it themselves?
Re: Do_not_track
#137Many of these tools are source available or supposedly open source, so it can't be that hard to take their tracking endpoints and call them in random order.
Re: Do_not_track
#138Re: Do_not_track
#139https://git.eeqj.de/sneak/consoledonottrack.com/src/branch/m...
Re: Do_not_track
#140There is a reason none the existing methods use the word "TRACK". Although connecting home can be used for tracking it doesn't have to be.
If a tool uses connecting home for telemetry, implementing "DO_NOT_TRACK" would suggest it does track its users without the setting, even if it may not.
Rename it this to "DO_NOT_CONNECT_HOME" and it may be a useful standard.