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

Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

bugzilla.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 113 posts

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#31

Post by belorn »

clarkevans wrote: post #24

Mozilla uses Google Analytics Premium Service ($150k/year) which includes a contractual option to prevent secondary use of the visitor data. Therefore, they see it as legally in the spirit of Do-Not-Track -- Google is a contractor collecting the visitation data solely for the pleasure of Mozilla. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=858839#c21 https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!search/m... Fr…

See comment 16.

The bug report is not about the legal contractual agreement between Google and Mozilla, but rather about user expectation from a "do not track me" option. Some users, maybe faulty or silly, consider a "do not track me" option to simply mean, do not track me.

It doesn't mater if Google sign a service contract that Mozilla pays $150k/year. "Do not track me" means, do not track me. It doesn't matter if Google promise to not be evil. Do not track me still means, do not send tracking data to Google. It doesn't even matter how extremely useful or good intention Mozilla or Google has with the tracking data. "Do not track me" really do mean, do not track me.

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#32

Post by bad_user »

bloopletech wrote: post #23
bad_user wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules His website. Seriously, people should be warned that they are tracked, the purpose for which they are tracked and what exactly is tracked. Google Search for example is giving warnings lately, that you have to manually dismiss (probably because of EU laws) and I view that as being progress. On the other hand demanding of publishers to not track you while you're on their…

Actually, I can use your site and benefit from it, while simultaneously blocking your ability to track me. It's called Ghostery (and similar browser extensions). I use Ad-Block Plus and Ghostery for all my web browsing, and have both Ad-Block Plus set to block _all_ ads and Ghostery set to block _all_ tracking scripts. These extensions do not make 'polite requests'; they directly control the browsing experience to my…

You do know that you're putting your trust into a browser extension created by a third-party with a shady business agenda, right?

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2280451/Google-Paying-t...

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#33

Post by Silhouette »

ronaldx wrote: post #21
eli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not seem apples to apples. Should I provide an "opt-out" of all advertising for people who just don't like looking at ads?

In the EU, the two situations I described are both legal obligations (regarding collection of personal data, the legal obligation is probably stronger than I described). [I have understood that this is not the same in the US and the situation is therefore murky and EU law is not respected on the internet as a whole.] What you described is not a legal obligation, although I personally think you should provide the opti…

In the EU, the two situations I described are both legal obligations

What EU law requires a web site to check for and act on DNT?

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#34

Post by jasonlotito »

Nursie wrote: post #4
Metatron wrote: post #3

Do Not Track is silly. For example: You come on to my site, I want to know how you're using it, I don't want your personal details, I just want to see how you're interacting with the site I've made for you. Why do I want to know? Well it depends on the purpose of the site, but for the most part it is so that I can optimise and improve what my site offers to you and others. But you've politely requested that I don't t…

>> I have a right to track how people use my site. But you don't have a right to say what runs on my computer, or make it tell you what I'm doing. This is where our perceived rights collide. >> once you've made that choice you are within my domain, under my roof, living by my rules. No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules. >> People get way too offended by analytics tracking when it's there for their benefit.…

> But you don't have a right to say what runs on my computer, or make it tell you what I'm doing. This is where our perceived rights collide.

You already have control over this. That doesn't contradict someones right to track how people use the site.

> No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules.

And again, you already have control over this. However, if you give data to a remote server, they have the right to use that data. You are, in fact, giving them that data.

> No, people get offended when you try to turn their computer into a device that spies on them. And we get more offended that this sort of stuff happens without most people even being aware its going on.

That's a result of people wanting defaults, and most people change those defaults to be the least annoying as possible, regardless of security/privacy implications, even if it's explained to them.

> And it's so lovely of you to have made the decision for me that it's to my benefit, so I don't have to worry about pesky things like privacy concerns, or having control over my own computing.

But you do. You can prevent cookies from being put on your computer. You can prevent 3rd party cookies. You do have this control.

What do you not have control over that you feel you should have control over? You keep talking about control as if you don't have it?

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#35

Post by Fice »

clarkevans wrote: post #24

Mozilla uses Google Analytics Premium Service ($150k/year) which includes a contractual option to prevent secondary use of the visitor data. Therefore, they see it as legally in the spirit of Do-Not-Track -- Google is a contractor collecting the visitation data solely for the pleasure of Mozilla. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=858839#c21 https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!search/m... Fr…

These obligations are meaningless unless there is a way to verify compliance.

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#36

Post by jasonlotito »

belorn wrote: post #31
clarkevans wrote: post #24

Mozilla uses Google Analytics Premium Service ($150k/year) which includes a contractual option to prevent secondary use of the visitor data. Therefore, they see it as legally in the spirit of Do-Not-Track -- Google is a contractor collecting the visitation data solely for the pleasure of Mozilla. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=858839#c21 https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!search/m... Fr…

See comment 16. The bug report is not about the legal contractual agreement between Google and Mozilla, but rather about user expectation from a "do not track me" option. Some users, maybe faulty or silly, consider a "do not track me" option to simply mean, do not track me. It doesn't mater if Google sign a service contract that Mozilla pays $150k/year. "Do not track me" means, do not track me. It doesn't matter if G…

Something to consider. In Firefox, the DNT options have a Learn More link that answers the question:

"Do Not Track is a feature in Firefox that allows you to let a website know you would like to opt-out of third-party tracking for purposes including behavioral advertising. It does this by transmitting a Do Not Track HTTP header every time your data is requested from the Web."

While you can debate whether that's the appropriate place for that information, it's not as if Mozilla is hiding this information. It's easily reached, and not at all intentionally hidden away. Nothing devious. Just a question of how to appropriately display the information.

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#37

Post by [deleted] »

belorn wrote: post #31
clarkevans wrote: post #24

Mozilla uses Google Analytics Premium Service ($150k/year) which includes a contractual option to prevent secondary use of the visitor data. Therefore, they see it as legally in the spirit of Do-Not-Track -- Google is a contractor collecting the visitation data solely for the pleasure of Mozilla. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=858839#c21 https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!search/m... Fr…

See comment 16. The bug report is not about the legal contractual agreement between Google and Mozilla, but rather about user expectation from a "do not track me" option. Some users, maybe faulty or silly, consider a "do not track me" option to simply mean, do not track me. It doesn't mater if Google sign a service contract that Mozilla pays $150k/year. "Do not track me" means, do not track me. It doesn't matter if G…

[deleted]

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#38

Post by belorn »

jeremysmyth wrote: post #9

There's a large effective difference between "do not track" as it is outlined in the bug, and how many people see it (see, for example, comment 16 in the report, and then comment 25) Specifically, it's to do with third party cookies, not any particular site. If I visit someone's website, I'm usually perfectly happy for them to record my visit and my actions. If, on the other hand, I visit their website and some invis…

> Switching it all off is harmful to the internet.

See comment 28 in the report. No one has argued to turn of all analytics on website. That is a straw man argument. The bug report simply ask that users who explicitly do not want to be tracked, can have their request granted. Turn off analytics for them and the problem is solved. Alternatively, they can use analytics that do not track each individual user.

We used to live in a world where statistics did not include 100% tallied votes. It was simply too expensive to do survey on all customers, all citizens, all users. Trends and data was extracted out of a limited sized sample, commonly from a opt-in basis. With websites however, it as cheaply and easy to track all users as it is to track a limited set of users, so data tend to be 100% rather then a subset. Thus, total tracking has always been about the price, rather than need.

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#39

Post by panacea »

belorn wrote: post #31
clarkevans wrote: post #24

Mozilla uses Google Analytics Premium Service ($150k/year) which includes a contractual option to prevent secondary use of the visitor data. Therefore, they see it as legally in the spirit of Do-Not-Track -- Google is a contractor collecting the visitation data solely for the pleasure of Mozilla. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=858839#c21 https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups=#!search/m... Fr…

See comment 16. The bug report is not about the legal contractual agreement between Google and Mozilla, but rather about user expectation from a "do not track me" option. Some users, maybe faulty or silly, consider a "do not track me" option to simply mean, do not track me. It doesn't mater if Google sign a service contract that Mozilla pays $150k/year. "Do not track me" means, do not track me. It doesn't matter if G…

Should a distinction be made between "Do not track me" and "Do not track anonymous/aggregate user's paths".

Serious question. I think that's what's being suggested here?

Re: Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org

#40

Post by delinka »

Metatron wrote: post #3

Do Not Track is silly. For example: You come on to my site, I want to know how you're using it, I don't want your personal details, I just want to see how you're interacting with the site I've made for you. Why do I want to know? Well it depends on the purpose of the site, but for the most part it is so that I can optimise and improve what my site offers to you and others. But you've politely requested that I don't t…

Rather than attempt to reply to all the misconceptions below, I figured I'd post here.

I'm not on your server. My browser isn't on your site. It sent a request to your server to send me a copy of some content. Your server sent that content. It's all on my computer.

This, in my opinion, is why Do Not Track is silly: You, nor your server, have any right to the expectation that I'll send tracking information (that your site provided in, say, a cookie) with every request. Meaning that the browser makers should be providing users options in this space- the power lies entirely with the browser makers and their users. Of course, completely omitting cookies and other tracking details leaves you, the site owner, making assumptions about user behavior on your site from a limited number of details like IP address and perhaps user agent strings. The ever popular cookie was the answer to maintaining session data across requests, and Double Click made famous the idea of tracking users across many sites (by embedding their assets [a blank pixel, a JavaScript, etc] and giving the user a doubleclick.net cookie.) Double Click's concept was, in the minds of most Internet users, a perversion of the purpose of cookies.

Post reply on HN