31–40 of 270 posts
The relevant context is that Mozilla is now an adtech company. Reuter's coverage over noyb complaint over illegal "PET" adtech: https://www.reuters.com/technology/mozilla-hit-with-privacy-... Mozilla buying out an adtech company: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-anonym-raising-t... Mozilla has also been lending its credibility and whitewashing Meta's "PET" measuring standards at W3C. More on this, from Moz…
So GPC is basically the same as DNT, but according to [1], "GPC improves on DNT in several ways:" - Legal backing: Unlike DNT, GPC is supported by more laws, like the CCPA, which requires businesses to honor these signals. - Targeted approach: While DNT broadly addressed tracking, GPC focuses specifically on stopping data from being sold or shared, making it more relevant to today’s privacy needs. - Better adoption p…
Because it's off by default? It's the exact same thing, a header with a preset value.
> While DNT broadly addressed tracking, GPC focuses specifically on stopping data from being sold or shared, making it more relevant to today’s privacy needs.
My needs are not being tracked. The tracking is what comes before the selling. I don't want to opt out of selling, I want to opt out of tracking.
> Better adoption potential: GPC was created with input from regulators, privacy advocates, and industry leaders, to align it with existing laws and address previous gaps in functionality.
"Gaps in functionality"? The difference between GPC and DNT is that DNT sends "DNT: 1" and GPC sends "Sec-GPC: 1".
Companies that never respected DNT aren't going to respect GPC. The only difference here is that IE doesn't have GPC enabled by default, but it does have DNT enabled by default.
[flagged]
I understand that many people here have a bad taste of Mozilla's recent actions in many aspects. But the reality here is that this is at worst removing something that almost nobody respected. It was based on honor system and even in Switzerland they do have random inspections for honor system. Browsers never had any enforcement of this feature. And ironically it was used as additional data point of tracking privacy a…
Medium supported it for ages. Tools like Matomo came with support for it by default. Firefox has implemented the replacement, Global Privacy Control. It has the exact same problems and isn't respected either, except even fewer websites have implementations that respect GPC. It's not a real solution to the normalised cyberstalking websites practice today, but it's also not entirely useless.
[flagged]
>they became an ad company ???
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/digital-advertising-priv...
- "...We’ve been collaborating with Meta on this, because any successful mechanism will need to be actually useful to advertisers, and designing something that Mozilla and Meta are simultaneously happy with is a good indicator we’ve hit the mark..."
https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1e43w7v/a_word_abo...
Etc. (You have to read these things *carefully*, because, the way Mozilla corpos write press, they obfuscate words to the point you can barely make out the sense from the noise).
I understand that many people here have a bad taste of Mozilla's recent actions in many aspects. But the reality here is that this is at worst removing something that almost nobody respected. It was based on honor system and even in Switzerland they do have random inspections for honor system. Browsers never had any enforcement of this feature. And ironically it was used as additional data point of tracking privacy a…
Medium supported it for ages. Tools like Matomo came with support for it by default. Firefox has implemented the replacement, Global Privacy Control. It has the exact same problems and isn't respected either, except even fewer websites have implementations that respect GPC. It's not a real solution to the normalised cyberstalking websites practice today, but it's also not entirely useless.
I understand that many people here have a bad taste of Mozilla's recent actions in many aspects. But the reality here is that this is at worst removing something that almost nobody respected. It was based on honor system and even in Switzerland they do have random inspections for honor system. Browsers never had any enforcement of this feature. And ironically it was used as additional data point of tracking privacy a…
Medium supported it for ages. Tools like Matomo came with support for it by default. Firefox has implemented the replacement, Global Privacy Control. It has the exact same problems and isn't respected either, except even fewer websites have implementations that respect GPC. It's not a real solution to the normalised cyberstalking websites practice today, but it's also not entirely useless.
I understand that many people here have a bad taste of Mozilla's recent actions in many aspects. But the reality here is that this is at worst removing something that almost nobody respected. It was based on honor system and even in Switzerland they do have random inspections for honor system. Browsers never had any enforcement of this feature. And ironically it was used as additional data point of tracking privacy a…
Medium supported it for ages. Tools like Matomo came with support for it by default. Firefox has implemented the replacement, Global Privacy Control. It has the exact same problems and isn't respected either, except even fewer websites have implementations that respect GPC. It's not a real solution to the normalised cyberstalking websites practice today, but it's also not entirely useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An obvious solution would be to turn it on by default
That's what IE 10 did. It led all the major advertisers to make public statements that they were going to ignore the header as a form of protest.
When (major advertiser/website detected): Prompt user, "Warning: (Advertiser/website) insists on tracking you, and have made public statements affirming this position. Your privacy is not enforceable on this website."
I understand that many people here have a bad taste of Mozilla's recent actions in many aspects. But the reality here is that this is at worst removing something that almost nobody respected. It was based on honor system and even in Switzerland they do have random inspections for honor system. Browsers never had any enforcement of this feature. And ironically it was used as additional data point of tracking privacy a…
1. assume the user by default does not want to be tracked and make do-not-track opt-out.
2. have it running for a few years and gradually increase the heat on the discussion that nobody respects it.
But as it stands do-not-track never had a chance to succeed - I believe that was by intention.