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

Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

ypolicyblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 96 posts

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#41

Post by jrajav »

powertower wrote: post #19

> Recently, Microsoft unilaterally decided to turn on DNT in Internet Explorer 10 by default, rather than at users’ direction. > It basically means that the DNT signal from IE10 doesn’t express user intent. Blatantly false. Not only are you presented with the option to turn off DNT on first use (that takes up the entire screen), but I'd imagine users would choose to have advertisers track them about 1-10% of the time…

I also did a double-take on that first sentence you quoted. I'm pretty sure I read earlier that they will be prompting first-time users on what their preference will be, and that the "default" basically just means which position that switch will be in when the choice is presented. However, I did some quick fact-checking and I couldn't find anything to back that up; if you don't mind, where did you find that IE10 presents that option?

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#42

Post by ktsmith »

jfoster wrote: post #23
jlarocco wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words meaning they're not going to support it... "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" is not really supporting DNT. It really shows they're business model depends on people being computer illiterate. And now that DNT is on by default they're revolting because they know few people will ever go out of their way to opt-in and get tracked.

One could also argue that Microsoft is not being pragmatic in expecting these companies to continue to honour it if it is on by default. At least when it is off by default, it will be honoured if a user opts to turn it on.

I agree, additionally it's not even really "off" by default. The default in the spec right now is a null value which indicates "we don't know" which is actually accurate until the user makes a choice.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#43

Post by dialtone »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #33
ktsmith wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" No, they are only going to support it if it is _actually_ the users intent, not a vendors intent. This is completely reasonable and the actions of MS are undermining the efforts to get this voluntary standard going. Keep in mind, DNT is completely voluntary.

What method are they using to determine if it's _actually_ the user's intent?

You have to explicitly set it on, that means the user had to take a specific action, and that means there was an intent to do it.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#44

Post by wonderyak »

nanoanderson wrote: post #37

Maybe Yahoo should respect IE10's DNT defaults, but display huge modal screens that tell the user "Your browser vendor is inhibiting our value proposition. Please allow us to track your behavior for maximum value extraction."

They should give you a medal. That's how you create upward revenue stream dynamics!

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#45

Post by ktsmith »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #33
ktsmith wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" No, they are only going to support it if it is _actually_ the users intent, not a vendors intent. This is completely reasonable and the actions of MS are undermining the efforts to get this voluntary standard going. Keep in mind, DNT is completely voluntary.

What method are they using to determine if it's _actually_ the user's intent?

There are three values that the header can contain.

  null - no value set
  
  0 - opted in to tracking
  
  1 - opted out of tracking
A 0 or 1 imply intent and null would imply the user has taken no action.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#46

Post by thezilch »

gergles wrote: post #24
ktsmith wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, almost no one will know. The thing is most people don't take the time to read those things they just click through blindly.

Yet somehow software developers are quick to screech that users agreed to 'license agreements' that have the same weight, right? (Words on a screen that everyone just 'clicks through blindly'.) You can't have it both ways. Either having something show up and clicking next manifests consent or it doesn't. IE is extremely clear that DNT will be turned on and lets you opt out of doing so. Users are expressing intent by…

Somehow you replaced "lawyers" with "software developers," right?

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#47

Post by ktsmith »

gergles wrote: post #24
ktsmith wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, almost no one will know. The thing is most people don't take the time to read those things they just click through blindly.

Yet somehow software developers are quick to screech that users agreed to 'license agreements' that have the same weight, right? (Words on a screen that everyone just 'clicks through blindly'.) You can't have it both ways. Either having something show up and clicking next manifests consent or it doesn't. IE is extremely clear that DNT will be turned on and lets you opt out of doing so. Users are expressing intent by…

I don't know any developers that believe that however I've met many managers and attorneys that believe it. Common industry practices should be laid at the feet of those responsible.

Beyond licensing agreements though, people won't read instructions, disclaimers, warnings, etc. It's not just one thing, and when designing things at work one of our common points to try and make things more clear includes "people don't read" so how can we improve this.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#48

Post by ben0x539 »

dialtone wrote: post #40
ben0x539 wrote: post #25

I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that users intend to not be tracked by the very large number of third parties they are involuntarily exposed to on the web. Yahoo are resorting to this whole buzzword-laden meaningless rhetoric around ~user experience~ and ~value proposition~. That just reinforces the impression that the only reason anyone was prepared to go along with DNT was that they assumed that 99% of…

How is a cookie 'just short of transmitting the user's SSN'? Microsoft itself, for example, doesn't support DNT for all browsers in its advertising network Atlas.

> How is a cookie 'just short of transmitting the user's SSN'?

In that it's fairly straightforward to track a user across multiple sites and sessions with a cookie, almost as easy as if the browser was already sending a user-specific identification number along on its own.

I didn't want to present Microsoft as the good guys here either, they're playing their own game and I have no illusion that they really care about their users' privacy.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#49

Post by [deleted] »

w1ntermute wrote: post #35
jlarocco wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words meaning they're not going to support it... "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" is not really supporting DNT. It really shows they're business model depends on people being computer illiterate. And now that DNT is on by default they're revolting because they know few people will ever go out of their way to opt-in and get tracked.

Doesn't that make sense? If someone doesn't care enough to go in and turn on DNT, why does it matter if they're tracked? The default should obviously be 'null', that's the most equitable choice for all parties involved.

[deleted]

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#50

Post by Karunamon »

technoslut wrote: post #31
theevocater wrote: post #11

I know people celebrated Microsoft's decision to do this in IE10, but this is what many of us were saying would happen. The relationship with the Do Not Track flag was always tenuous so flagrantly ignoring the spec (which indicates that default on is wrong) was simply going to cause companies to ignore the flag completely. Regardless, this whole thing is silliness in the extreme. I wonder if this means yahoo is going…

Advertising companies can be shameless. What makes you think they ever would have respected DNT even if was opt-out?

They support the NAI which enables you to turn off various tracking bits. Let's not go around shitting on a whole type of business wholesale because of a few bad actors, hm?
Post reply on HN