
The attack on Do Not Track - michael_nielsen
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2010/12/the_attack_on_d.php
======
gyardley
I suspect that tracking is important enough to online operations that if more
than a small percentage of people opt-out, sites will start requiring users to
opt-in to view content. There's no free ride, after all.

Carr believes that this turn of events would be an improvement - instead of
the current _unwritten_ trade of content for information, everything is out in
the open and users can make informed choices.

I think it'll be a disaster - I doubt many users want to take the time to make
this decision multiple times a day. People will continue to click through
agreements without reading them, but since these agreements will now be opt-
in, publishers will be more and more comfortable loading them up with
intrusive terms. Law of unintended consequences in action.

~~~
dugmartin
There will probably be a rider to the law that states that you can't
discriminate against users that select "Do Not Track". That will be added by
the Trial Lawyer's Lobby so they can ensure a class action lawsuit is filed.

~~~
jbooth
6 years ago called. He said that John Edwards hasn't been on a general
election ballot since 2004, and there's no organization called the Trial
Lawyers Lobby.. he suggests demonizing community organizers and voter
registration groups instead.

~~~
dugmartin
Of course there is a Trial Lawyers Lobby. They meet on alternating Thursdays
at the Stonecutter's Lodge (it's BYOB).

------
fredleblanc
If this all goes through, I suppose it's only a matter of time before websites
detect your Do Not Track preferences and essentially limit the content you can
see like the pay-walls some online content providers have now. "Add this site
to your Do Not Track exception-list to view full articles."

~~~
billswift
So? That's the purpose, after all, to give the viewer a choice rather than
default to whatever the web site wants.

------
nowarninglabel
The author bills it as 'freedom of choice', but I would argue we already have
freedom of choice when it comes to advertising on the internet. In the same
way that I can mute the TV when commercials come on, I can also turn on ad
blocker, flash blocker, cookie blocker, and other such plugins or extensions.
These steps will foil all but the most invasive advertisers, for whom you can
still foil by more sophisticated methods. The choice is there, but it's up to
the consumer to take action.

~~~
ktsmith
The average user is not sophisticated enough to implement most of the steps
you are comparing with a mute button so the comparison isn't really that
great. It's more about being a matter of "freedom of choice" for everyone and
not just those that are technically savvy. Anyone can fill out the form to get
a phone number on the do not call list, not everyone can install and maintain
an ad blocker, cookie blocker, flash blocker nor manage to get those turned
off when they actually need a feature on a site that isn't related to tracking
them but the service that is provided.

~~~
jasonlotito
Actually, you can. You can buy software to do this for you. I believe Norton
does this, as do other internet security software available for home users
(not entirely sure here).

DNC was different: People called you. On the internet, web sites don't call
you; rather, you "call" web sites.

~~~
ktsmith
I can't speak to the most of these pieces of software but things like Norton
don't do any good. They don't block ads and they allow you to remove cookies
after the fact during their scans but not during sessions so you are still
being tracked during any browsing sessions you may have between scans.

While you "call" websites you aren't telling the advertisers on those websites
that you want them to follow you around the Internet you are interacting with
the site you chose to visit and it's operators. That seems very much like an
unwanted telephone call to me. They are both unwanted interactions with third
parties that you should be able to opt-out of.

edit: These software solutions are still not even close to being comparable
with the mute button used in the first example and barely comparable to the
DNC. More importantly they are of questionable effectiveness.

~~~
jasonlotito
You make some good points. As I said, I'm not really aware first hand of their
capabilities. I'll just say that I still think that if a problem exists, the
solution should be solved by the market, rather than any attempt at some form
of "legislation." There are things that the browser makers and software
vendors can do still. The problem, I think, is no one wants to pay for their
privacy, but a lot of people, I imagine, would pay to give it up.

------
there
does one opt out of long-term cookie tracking by having a long-term cookie
stored that says "do not track me"?

~~~
eli
If the default is "don't track" then the _absence_ of a cookie could just as
well signify "do not track me"

------
jdp23
Excellent points. Do Not Track is enormously popular, just as Do Not Call was,
so it's a real challenge for companies who have prospered by tracking
customers without telling them or giving them a real opportunity to say no.

------
adorton
How would this even work? Would every browser need to have a "don't track me"
mechanism that the server would have to obey?

