RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023) • Hacker News Board

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#141

Post by pims » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 11:14 AM UTC

foundry27 wrote: post #14

It’s great satire, but it really does mirror a larger societal shift where the burden of safeguarding personal autonomy has shifted from institutions/regulators to individual users. Do-Not-Stab, Do-Not-Track, whatever it might be, any sort of “voluntary compliance” is a non-starter in the face of financial pressures IMO we need to start normalizing being militant about this stuff again, to aggressively and adversaria…

It's amusing to see this message heavily upvoted on HN when most mentions of Firefox here are welcomed with an avalanche of perfect solution fallacies.

I'm dubious about people becoming militant about this when the software engineering industry gave Chrome a red carpet by using it and installing it on their relatives' computers while knowing very well it's adware and when switching to the alternative is incredibly cheap.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#142

Post by killerstorm » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 11:20 AM UTC

andyzei wrote: post #71

The Do Not Track header was originally proposed in 2009 by researchers Christopher Soghoian and Sid Stamm.[2] Mozilla Firefox became the first browser to implement the feature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track#:~:text=The%20Do%... .

There was a much more elaborate standard called P3P recommend by w3c in 2002. It apparently defined a description of how business can use personal data.

But apparently it was considered too complex and "lacking enforcement".

Now maybe if it survived till GDPR it could have it's enforcement, but Mozilla yanked support before that...

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#143

Post by rurban » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 11:22 AM UTC

samtheprogram wrote: post #57

shadowgovt wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still extremely skeptical of it because in practice it basically added a cookie banner to every every website I visit infrequently with no particular benefit to me. I'm just going to click "yes," stop asking.

I click no to all of them, but it would be really nice if the Do-Not-Track header essentially let you pick in advance — for you (0) or for me (1)

Not just "really nice". It must be mandatory to respect it.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#144

Post by rurban » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 11:25 AM UTC

phoronixrly wrote: post #28

actionfromafar wrote: post #4

This is such transparent EU Bureaucracy shilling. No wonder Europe doesn't have any large SaaS companies with their stabbing unfriendly business climate.

Yeah, why can't the EU just leave the stabtech industry stab in peace?...

The stabtech industry will just change to Stab-Into-The-Back technology, because every user hates to be stabbed in the chest, but doesn't care if it's not seen.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#145

Post by Timwi » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 11:33 AM UTC

anakaiti wrote: post #83

[flagged]

The whole website is a treasure trove. There's a page with two C# puzzles and one with an HTML/JavaScript puzzle that I found very interesting. I'm still stuck on the second C# one!

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#146

Post by boomlinde » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 11:37 AM UTC

jeroenhd wrote: post #46

It's important to note that the Do-Not-Stab header has been deprecated because one browser engine switched it on by default and requiring users to opt into stabbing hurt the bottom line of the stabbing industry, so it's no longer respected. Luckily someone came up with General Assault Control, a non-standard alternative, which also only has one value, so you can set Sec-GAC to 1 to request websites not to assault you…

It's now customary, in order to comply with European regulations, to present users with a list of possible violent crimes against their person that they can opt out of before using a website. This ensures that non-consent to stabbing is always an active choice, so that users who want to be stabbed or otherwise maimed won't accidentally miss out on the opportunity.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#147

Post by williamdclt » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 11:38 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #127

mola wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No,.all the companies running the sites chose to add a cookie banner. And you choose to keep going there

Yes, and my life world be more convenient if this banner would go away or I could declare a universal preference. I miss the old Internet where nobody cared about their privacy.

nobody cared about their privacy because there was no widespread systematic effort to invade it.

I don't care about my privacy in the street despite it being public because there's no-one following my every step taking note of where I go, how fast, what music I'm listening to, what I'm looking at... (although the astute reader will argue that this is less and less true, there's more and more tech tracking our activity in real life too)

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#148

Post by shadowgovt » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 11:40 AM UTC

psd1 wrote: post #140

shadowgovt wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a recipe to reduce the internet to a handful of heavily-financed publishers who can afford legal protection against strict liability.

That's reasonable. Could also decimate the adtech industry and cut them down to just serving ads based on keyword searches and location, like they did 20 years ago

I mean... I'm not categorically against the internet becoming the exclusive playground of FAANG companies, but I perceive many don't agree.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#149

Post by Timwi » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 11:43 AM UTC

tdeck wrote: post #6

For those who only skim things, it might be worth scrolling down to read the "Editor Comments" section which is the actual article.

I feel the need to comment on one sentence in it: “companies are god damn children and must be told no explicitly by every person individually.”

While it's true that children will often go out of their ways to test boundaries, I have no trouble giving them the benefit of the doubt and saying that children are innocently experimenting.

Companies, meanwhile, are doing this with fully deliberate malicious intent. They do this because capitalism rewards it. We need to say this, and keep saying it, until everyone gets it. Companies cannot be reared like children. Companies do not “mature” to become well-behaving, ethical citizens. With the profit motive in effect, companies have every incentive to work around every legislation and regulation and screw us at every opportunity they get. The profit motive must go.

Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)

#150

Post by dullcrisp » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 11:50 AM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #69

dullcrisp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the point of critical thinking club isn’t really its exclusivity. In this case if you don’t know which specific header this is parodying that’s completely understandable. But if you really think this is about computers stabbing people and can’t laugh at yourself about it when you find out that it isn’t then I don’t think we will be able to engage on this topic in a mutually rewarding manner.

I don’t think it’s about computers stabbing people, but that’s not relevant. The issue is your willingness to keep people in the dark so you can feel good that you got a reference without it being explained.

I wasn’t accusing you of not getting the joke, I was speaking in general. But thank you for demonstrating how it’s difficult to have a conversation with someone who takes everything literally.