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

91–100 of 113 posts

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

#91

Post by jackalope »

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…

People get way too offended by analytics tracking when it's there for their benefit.

While I agree with the rest of your comment, isn't it possible that analytics is just snake oil for webmasters? The third party services like GA collect a staggering amount of real-time aggregate data in return for sharing a sliver of it with webmasters in the form of pretty graphs. I'm not saying this information isn't useful, but can webmasters reconcile the results against their own logs? Can they submit sanitized logs for analysis instead of including code in web pages, so they can proactively protect user privacy while sharing only the minimum data necessary for their needs? In any case, analytics services aren't motivated purely by altruism and their business model plausibly extends beyond purely providing a service to webmasters.

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

#92

Post by znowi »

I'm with the bug author on this: "do not track" should mean do not track. And it explicitly mentions analytics on the DNT site.

Do Not Track is a technology and policy proposal that enables users to opt out of tracking by websites they do not visit, including analytics services, advertising networks, and social platforms

http://donottrack.us/

However, Wikipedia says that the exact definition of what constitutes tracking is not yet clear.

The Do Not Track (DNT) header is the proposed HTTP header field DNT that requests that a web application disable either its tracking or cross-site user tracking (the ambiguity remains unresolved) of an individual user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

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

#93

Post by natch »

diminoten wrote: post #89

I genuinely don't understand all the hatred out there for advert companies tracking user purchase trends. Can someone explain to me why I should care about this?

I think it's more a hatred of (perceived or real) trickery, deception, and weasel words, in this case. From an organization that should be a model for others to follow.

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

#94

Post by generj »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #62
lucb1e wrote: post #56

The very fact that the website must support DNT is its only and fatal flaw. Why should we trust websites to honor DNT when we keep sharing information with them?

I agree entirely. IF I send a request, I expect that request to be stored. If I don't want to make the request, I won't make the request (noscript, ghostery, and AdBlock+ go a long way to that). DNT is a pointless 8 bytes that has no real, enforceable meaning.

We can have our cake and eat it too.

Send the DNT header flag, but purposefully edit analytics requests. Thus, providers must honor DNT requests or risk a poisoned well of data.

This is not theoretical, I have a Chrome plugin which does this to Google Analytics requests, and am increasingly tempted to release it to the world.

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

#95

Post by megablast »

bad_user wrote: post #18
Nursie wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> His website. Running in my browser. >> On the other hand demanding of publishers to not track you while you're on their property is unreasonable. I'm not on their property. I'm fairly happy for them to record what they can see at their end in terms of what pages I go to, but I find it very unreasonable to demand that I run whatever code the website operator asks me to run, to turn my computer into a machine that r…

If you don't like it, don't use it - simple as that. The only thing I find reasonable is for users to be warned that they are tracked, precisely for enabling them to move to alternatives that better respect their wishes. His website is running in your browser by your choice, not his ;-)

> simple as that.

Usually when someone says as simple as that, it clearly is not that simple.

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

#96

Post by supermatt »

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…

I'd like to expand on this idea, by suggesting that in the case of sites being 'whitelisted' in the site-manifest, that they should only have access to an alternate cookie type, such that they are only accessible via that domain.

i.e. instead of them having access to cookies stored under their own domain (e.g. cookies stored under thirdparty.net) they have access to cookies stored under the scope of the domain of the website in the browser address bar (e.g. cookies stored under thirdparty.net@targetdomain.com).

This would allow the use of third party services, but specifically restrict their usage to the target domain.

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

#97

Post by superuser2 »

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…

If you truly blocked _all_ tracking, you would not be posting on HN - that requires a session cookie.

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

#98

Post by superuser2 »

Nursie wrote: post #82
Metatron wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, let's try an analogy. I run a shop, you want to come into my shop, you want to physically bring yourself into my shop, with your personal items, including your wallet and let's say a bag to help you purchasing items, or perhaps just to browse. I'm going to keep an eye on you as I see fit whilst you are in my shop. Surely you can see that as fair? You are an agent entering my property. This is what your computer…

>> You are an agent entering my property. This is what your computer does when you access my site. No, no it does not. I'm not in your shop. I'm in my house. I requested some data from you, your server provided it. I'm under no obligation to do anything with that data at all, let alone allow you to execute arbitrary code on my computer because you feel like it's your right to. It's closer to mail order, both in fact…

That mail order business keeps a record of your transaction and uses transaction records in aggregate to figure out what to stock, when, in what quantity, and how to position products in its catalog. You don't have a right to opt out of that, nor do you have a right to opt out of a website owner recording the HTTP requests you send to it.

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

#99

Post by bloopletech »

thezilch wrote: post #90
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 sites will track you without javascript or ads? As well, do you browse without cookies and images, as those extensions will not help you there? And without session IDs in URIs, since you seem to want the web to return to byzantine times? > I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money Sites will make less money without use of cookies, images, and support of encoding se…

I think a number of different issues are being conflated here.

Secondly, in my ordinary web browsing, I'm not trying to avoid all tracking whatsoever - I'm much more interested in blocking the 99.9% low-hanging fruit of commercial 3rd-party tracking. If I really was paranoid / needed to prevent tracking completely, I'd use a much more sophisticated setup.

Given that context, the fact that some people may be trying to embed image web bugs on a bunch of pages isn't nearly as important or interesting; AFAIK most commercial 3rd-party trackers are javascript-based these days. Same applies for straight cookies - blocking the 3rd-party javascript usually prevents these begin set in the first place.

> since you seem to want the web to return to byzantine times? > without use of cookies, images, and support of encoding sessions into URIs

I'm not advocating for that at all - there is a continuum between only viewing raw HTML and running every bit of 3rd-party javascript someone decided to throw into the page.

My comment was bascially arguing that there _is_ a continuum, and that it is possible to block the vast majority of 3rd-party trackers, _without_ having to turn of JS completely, do anything really paranoid.

My whole comment, essentially, was about _avoiding_ turning off JS etc., and still maintaining a level of control over my browsing experience. I actually develop web applications for a living, so it would be a bit silly of me to say that we shouldn't have sessions support!

> > I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money

What I was referring to here, is that if ads and 3rd-party tracking are blocked, then sites will have to create new revenue streams to operate with - and if that means paying directly for good content, then I look forward to supporting that business model.

I think your annoyance is misplaced. I develop rails apps for a living, so I am aware of the importance of js, sessions etc. - I'm merely stating that I can have my cake (blocking 3rd-party trackers) and eat it (still use the next) too.

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

#100

Post by bloopletech »

superuser2 wrote: post #97
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…

If you truly blocked _all_ tracking, you would not be posting on HN - that requires a session cookie.

Ghostery primarily blocks 3rd-party advertising javascript - not at the session cookie level, and not for the website you're actually using.
Post reply on HN