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

41–50 of 113 posts

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

#41

Post by jasonlotito »

Nursie wrote: post #10
toble wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules. I think of websites like private properties. You are given conditional access on the assumption that you can behave (T&C / AUP), otherwise it's like trespassing. So, I don't think that people should expect excessive rights of freedom that they might have on their own property or even in public. It's a balancing act.

That's really not how I think, nor does it really reflect reality, IMHO. They are on my property, it's all rendered and running in my browser on my device. All that's happened is I've requested some data from the server and they've given it to me, from then on how I display it and what gets run is entirely up to me. If we want to attach terms and conditions to it (i.e. to use this site you must accept analytics/track…

> All that's happened is I've requested some data from the server and they've given it to me, from then on how I display it and what gets run is entirely up to me.

You currently already have this option. You can control all this. That you've setup your browser to, by default, automatically grant JavaScript the right to run or accept cookies from third parties or numerous other things is on you.

That's it has become fairly standard practice is a result of the masses wanting it that way.

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

#42

Post by Nursie »

jasonlotito wrote: post #34
Nursie wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

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

>> 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.

I think we may be talking at cross-purposes. The post I replied to says that they have a right to run tracking scripts and I don't have the right to reject them. This is what I disagree with.

Track that my IP address has requested page A, then B, then D, F, Q and P in rapid succession? Knock yourself out. I have no problem with this. If I want to obfuscate it I'll use Tor or a proxy. But he doesn't get to force me to run his scripts.

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

Indeed, but at least then they are informed and its their choice to make. At the moment this isn't really the case.

>> 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?

I know I have these powers and I exercise them. I'm only arguing against people who seek to take them away.

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

#43

Post by Nursie »

jasonlotito wrote: post #41
Nursie wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really not how I think, nor does it really reflect reality, IMHO. They are on my property, it's all rendered and running in my browser on my device. All that's happened is I've requested some data from the server and they've given it to me, from then on how I display it and what gets run is entirely up to me. If we want to attach terms and conditions to it (i.e. to use this site you must accept analytics/track…

> All that's happened is I've requested some data from the server and they've given it to me, from then on how I display it and what gets run is entirely up to me. You currently already have this option. You can control all this. That you've setup your browser to, by default, automatically grant JavaScript the right to run or accept cookies from third parties or numerous other things is on you. That's it has become f…

1. No, I haven't set my browser to do this, it comes that way.

2. I am aware of my options, thanks. But you'll find the other parties arguing that I don't or shouldn't have the right to exercise them.

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

#44

Post by belorn »

jasonlotito wrote: post #36
belorn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

A very good point, as I never clicked on their help site. Thank you.

It's interesting that the summery text on their Do Not Track FAQ has zero mentioning that tracking is redefined as "third-party tracking", but the FAQ question "What is Do Not Track" does. The summery is more in line with common expectation of the word tracking, while the FAQ question is more in line with the definition scope found in the standard.

An easy fix, would be to add "third-party" next to the word tracking in the option menu.

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

#45

Post by richardwhiuk »

Silhouette wrote: post #33
ronaldx wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

None.

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

#46

Post by pornel »

supermatt wrote: post #30

"Do not track" in its present (non-)state is a farce. It should be implemented at the browser level. My ideas on DNT: If a user specifies "do not track" in their browser-global or site-specific settings then ALL requests to third party domains should simply be blocked. This could be backed up by a site-provided manifest (potentially containing a comment for each ones justification, or a flag to say if its required or…

> ALL requests to third party domains should simply be blocked.

It's too late to do that. There's lots of websites relying on 3rd party CDNs for non-tracking purposes (CloudFront, Google-hosted jQuery, etc.)

Filtering on domain name alone won't prevent traffic from going through 3rd parties — tracking companies can ask websites to set up DNS CNAME for them or they'll use top-level HTTP redirects (like google.com uses to track SERP clicks).

And "my mom" isn't going to be able to vet list of domains. She'll call me and ask me to "fix" the computer so that "Log in with Facebook" works and there are no scary technical questions.

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

#48

Post by bloopletech »

bad_user wrote: post #32
bloopletech wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Your comment is FUD. The article you link to starts with truth and then drifts into FUD at the end.

See https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#optout (I have opted out).

I am annoyed that they accept money to whitelist ads and am also annoyed that they allow whitelisting like this at all; however there is a considerable distance between having opt-out whitelisting, and what you're implying.

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

#49

Post by belorn »

3825 wrote: post #16
toble wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules. I think of websites like private properties. You are given conditional access on the assumption that you can behave (T&C / AUP), otherwise it's like trespassing. So, I don't think that people should expect excessive rights of freedom that they might have on their own property or even in public. It's a balancing act.

This is probably a discussion I would prefer us to have offline but the gist of it is that as a nascent industry, we have to make strides towards self-regulation very quickly. The NAI knows about the dangers lurking ahead. Overregulation is not a bogeyman. It is a real threat. DNT is good for us. We don't want to track someone who explicitly does not want to be tracked (boo, Microsoft IE team!)

Can't an IE user turn tracking on if they want to?

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

#50

Post by [deleted] »

supermatt wrote: post #30

"Do not track" in its present (non-)state is a farce. It should be implemented at the browser level. My ideas on DNT: If a user specifies "do not track" in their browser-global or site-specific settings then ALL requests to third party domains should simply be blocked. This could be backed up by a site-provided manifest (potentially containing a comment for each ones justification, or a flag to say if its required or…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN