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

211–220 of 270 posts

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#211

Post by jmward01 »

araes wrote: post #177
wlesieutre wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IE did enable it by default, which got them good press but ultimately killed the feature since everyone stopped respecting it. That's why RFC 35140 "Do-Not-Stab" specifies that the user agent MUST NOT enable it by default. https://www.5snb.club/posts/2023/do-not-stab/

> most stabbings are not done by malicious actors, they are simply law-abiding companies which will gladly stop stabbing you if you ask. > The header has only one form, Do-Not-Stab: 1. This is because the lack of a header indicates a clear preference that the user wants to be stabbed. > Exceptions to the Do-Not-Stab header are accepted when commercial interests outweigh safety concerns. These include: Stabbings reque…

I had been on the fence about turning this on or not since I wasn't sure if turning it on would block legitimate reasons for stabbing me. I mean, I probably have deserved it many times. Good to know those reasons won't be blockers! I'll definitely turn this on if it becomes a ratified standard!

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#213

Post by sedatk »

dylan604 wrote: post #108
sedatk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What I’m trying to say is, that’s already the default running mode of a modern browser with the maybe exception of ad blockers on some. They already come with all privacy protections that don’t compromise compatibility. DNT, being a specific feature enabled by a very few people, doesn’t make sense to be reshaped into entirely something else like ad blocking (which is way beyond tracking protection and not necessarily mutually exclusive with it) or disabling of third party cookies (which has auth related consequences).

The conflation of semantics isn’t worth it, and may even be harmful. I totally disagree with the proposal.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#215

Post by secondcoming »

cogman10 wrote: post #189
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 have a friend that works in advertisement programming. Quiet ironically, "do not track" had the opposite of the intended effect. They didn't store any information about a user, except in the case of the do not track signifier in which case they had special tracking logic to make sure they didn't include that user in their datasets and future user models.

All adtech companies (should) do this. The 'special tracking logic' is just a flag that says whether anything considered PII is logged or not.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#216

Post by xorcist »

notatoad wrote: post #206
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, if the EU regulators who wrote the cookie law had any competence, this is how it would have been implemented. browsers should have a cookie prompt in the UI, not websites.

It should be straight up illegal to share my data with third parties. That's not something I as an end user should be forced to opt in to.

A browser level opt-in would be even more useless than a website prompt. Demonstrably almost no end users understand what they opt in to, and that type of contract should therefore carry close to zero weight.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#217

Post by xorcist »

miki123211 wrote: post #150
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 think a new browser could genuinely gain massive popularity if it was really good at this, and advertised the feature heavily, particularly in the EU. Google will never touch it with a hundred-foot pole due to antitrust concerns, they're effectively banned from making any significant, user-experience-affecting changes to Chrome at this point. Many people would immediately switch to a browser with 1) reliable Youtub…

I believe what you describe is something very close to Firefox. Enabling uBlock is down to a few clicks, but that does not seem to have helped Firefox gain massive popularity.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#218

Post by philistine »

xorcist wrote: post #217
miki123211 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a new browser could genuinely gain massive popularity if it was really good at this, and advertised the feature heavily, particularly in the EU. Google will never touch it with a hundred-foot pole due to antitrust concerns, they're effectively banned from making any significant, user-experience-affecting changes to Chrome at this point. Many people would immediately switch to a browser with 1) reliable Youtub…

I believe what you describe is something very close to Firefox. Enabling uBlock is down to a few clicks, but that does not seem to have helped Firefox gain massive popularity.

I use Safari with 1Blocker and I get 100% of what OP describes.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#219

Post by dathinab »

eastbound wrote: post #132
PittleyDunkin wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> why specifically tracking via cookies had to be singled out by regulation Well, it is not singled out by regulation. The GDPR doesn’t even mention cookies at all. They mention any way to track users. Fingerprinting is also banned, for example.

yes, GDPR is technology agnostic

many of it's predecessor sadly are not and are still around

leading to absurdities of there being _both_ a GDPR dialog for tracking and a "cookie dialog" (which depending of the law might also apply to local storage and co) to get permission to "store" something on you computer. Like a hint to not track you :facepalm:

(And yes legally from GDPR storing a same origin cookie only accessible to the browser and you to remember the user doesn't want to be tracked is legal _iff_ you don't use it for tracking users which don't want to be tracked server side. It's one of the many examples where "what legally is good enough" and "what security wise is good enough" can diverge quite a bit.)

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#220

Post by dathinab »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #127
dudus wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree and have said it for years. Microsoft is the main culprit of DNT failures.

DNT is a failure since it relies on advertiser self-regulation. We shouldn't ask them not to track us, we should make it very hard for them to do it.

It's a failure because law makers haven't made it clear ignoring it is illegal.

You probably can build a case around DNT clearly communicating that a user doesn't want to be tracked and as such it should be treated like an if the user manually opt out of all tracking.

But as long as lawmakers or court don't pin it down legally to make it a clear cut case instead of some gray area thing with a lot of wiggle room.

There is very little you can do against modern tracking tech without crippling browser functionality, as such solutions have to be law based foremost and supplemented with technology and actually painful penalties if companies try to sneak by this.

Post reply on HN