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

Do_not_track

donottrack.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 179 posts

Re: Do_not_track

#31

Post by stavros »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #28
stavros wrote: post #17

Honest question, what's the problem with crash dumps that include no personal info? They just help make the software less buggy. I also don't see an issue with anonymized usage patterns (this feature was used X times this month, this one Y times, etc). Can someone expound on what they see as a problem?

> Honest question, what's the problem with crash dumps that include no personal info? In addition to the other response: crash dumps are difficult to anonymize, both because useful crash dumps include something like a minidump (or some other small alternative to a core file), and because even without that, any random information from a backtrace may be sensitive (e.g. a URL). There's nothing wrong with saving a crash…

I'm more thinking Python crashes, where you just get the lines that executed, and ~zero identifiable data.

Re: Do_not_track

#33

Post by msla »

xandrius wrote: post #30
ximm wrote: post #10

Looks like a helpful honeypot! Any tool that will public announce support for this spec is a tool I know to avoid because it collects telemetry without explicit opt-in in the first place.

Well, don't look too deep else you won't be using many modern tools.

Hey, it's a list of services to feed fake data to!

Re: Do_not_track

#34

Post by cj »

kstrauser wrote: post #29

I’m morally opposed to the notion of optimizing the opt-out mechanism. I want a standardized opt-in mechanism, like: export ALLOW_TRACKING=telemetry,crash_dumps and the absence of such a setting means “fuck off, don’t spy on me”. It’s not my responsibility to turn off apps wanting to track me. It’s their responsibility to get me to authorize their specific flavor of tracking.

> It’s their responsibility to get me to authorize their specific flavor of tracking.

And they do by burying it in the user agreement you probably agreed to.

Like it or not, it is your responsibility. I agree it shouldn’t be, but let’s be realistic.

Re: Do_not_track

#37

Post by msla »

cj wrote: post #34
kstrauser wrote: post #29

I’m morally opposed to the notion of optimizing the opt-out mechanism. I want a standardized opt-in mechanism, like: export ALLOW_TRACKING=telemetry,crash_dumps and the absence of such a setting means “fuck off, don’t spy on me”. It’s not my responsibility to turn off apps wanting to track me. It’s their responsibility to get me to authorize their specific flavor of tracking.

> It’s their responsibility to get me to authorize their specific flavor of tracking. And they do by burying it in the user agreement you probably agreed to. Like it or not, it is your responsibility. I agree it shouldn’t be, but let’s be realistic.

Then it's my responsibility to feed them fake data.

They didn't opt out of my data, after all.

Re: Do_not_track

#39

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

I don't think there is any way to stop people from tracking you. Technically speaking, you can pretty much always be tracked. Even if you eliminated all third party requests you could still be tracked. Downloads, logins, queries, etc all can be tracked. Virtually all software now has the "continuously upgrade to the latest version" bullshit so you are tracked every time you open the app. Even if you turn it off, they stop the app from working until you upgrade, so they force you to be tracked.

I think the only solution is to make it law that you can't track anyone for any reason without their consent, and can't sell consensual tracking data without an additional consent agreement. It would be a huge blow to the advertising industry, so it will never be made law, but it's the only thing that would work.

Re: Do_not_track

#40

Post by amelius »

You can also use network namespaces to simply block internet access for certain processes. It can even be finetuned with whitelists or blacklists.
Post reply on HN