
Google, Facebook: "do not track" bill a threat to California economy - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/#!/tech-policy/news/2011/05/google-facebook-fight-california-do-not-track-law.ars
======
neutronicus
I'm of two minds about this. I want my browsing habits to be a closed book to
_everyone_ , period, and I doubt I have the necessary technical savvy to
achieve that goal. I'd therefore love to dump the responsibility on the
government, and damn the consequences to the California economy.

I am afraid, though, that letting the government get a regulatory foot in the
internet's door will send me out of the frying pan and into the fire, privacy-
wise.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Why is that (that you want your browsing habits closed)? Would you expect your
flying habits to be closed as well? Every business keeps a record of their
customer, why do we attribute special derision to the same thing happening
online? The perceived anonymity?

~~~
neutronicus
The short answer: I don't fly anywhere to look at porn.

The long answer:

There are laws that tell the airlines and the railroads to whom they are not
allowed to sell information on my travel habits. Restrictive ones. There are
certainly laws against wireless companies selling information on my
whereabouts.

------
atacrawl
_Second, the letter points out that the four leading Web browsers—Internet
Explorer, Firefox, Safari, and Google Chrome—already offer various means of
preventing advertising companies from tracking users._

Perhaps I'm wrong, and please correct me if I am, but I don't think this is
true -- is it? I thought that features like Private Browsing (Safari) and
Incognito (Chrome) only prevented the browser from recording page and search
history (or using form autofills) on your local machine. This is the first
I've heard that it affects user tracking by advertisers in any way, shape or
form.

EDIT: And the more I think of it, the stupider this "solution" becomes --
basically, they're asking users to forego recording their own browsing history
to avoid being tracked! Well, where do I sign up?

~~~
keltex
They also don't store regular cookies. But that doesn't prevent other
techniques such as evercookie to track the user.

------
kovar
I found the most interesting part of this article the following quote: "...
and would make them more vulnerable to security threats." Allowing users to
opt out of tracking _increases_ their security threat? I'd like to see more
detail on this.

~~~
Goronmon
Sites such as a banking site, track user location to help determine whether
it's actually you logging in, or some account phisher overseas.

Allowing users to opt-out of such tracking would make those sites less secure.

~~~
DrJ
or it might make it more secure by opt-in to being tracked where you are
accessing it from.

~~~
Goronmon
Can you try rewording this? As I'm having zero luck trying to figure out what
you meant to say. :(

------
dkl
"... and would make them more vulnerable to security threats."

This claim has nothing behind it. Is it just FUD? If not, what's the argument?

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Fraud identification becomes much harder. Gmail, for example, logs which IPs
you log in from and warns (locks out?) if the timing of log in locations is
suspicious.

------
yanw
They are absolutely right. And last time I checked the internet was global and
not micromanaged on state level.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
That era is slipping away. More and more the internet is becoming like
everything else; controlled by people who's job security depends on having
something to crow about.

There are already several means of stopping tracking: clearing your cookies
and cache, using private mode, not visiting the sites that record this
information.

~~~
orangecat
_clearing your cookies and cache, using private mode, not visiting the sites
that record this information_

I don't necessarily support this bill, but those methods are not nearly
sufficient.

~~~
earl
"not visiting the sites that record this information"

is, in fact, perfectly sufficient

I have to run, so: @falconas: of course this is a sacrifice. But if sufficient
people feel similarly, over time, one would expect companies to act
accordingly.

@nobody_nowhere: damn, I totally forgot about cdns. But I can't imagine cdn
contracts allow the cdn to use visit information from clients... or do they?

~~~
falcolas
Let's pretend, for a minute, that you did not want Google to have your surfing
habits. How many sites would you have to avoid in order to prevent them from
getting any whiff of your information?

I believe that "any site which uses adwords, google analytics or links youtube
videos, or ..." is a good definition of insufficient.

~~~
yanw
Google offer opt-outs for their stuff.

Bu that's not the point, the point is that if people are really that concerned
about internet privacy they could install privacy software the same as with
parental control software so their is no need to pile more restrictive
innovation stifling laws.

~~~
falcolas
Privacy software doesn't help when your information is directly sold to the
highest bidder (which can be the government, see the latest TomTom kerfuffle).

There are technical steps we can take to minimize our publicly available
footprint on the internet, but there's no way to completely control it, short
of oversight on the corporations that mine our data.

Perhaps this is lack of imagination on my part, but how does offering people
the ability to opt out of invasive data collection stifle innovation? Sure,
it's another hurdle for any company to overcome (one amongst thousands, if you
run a for-profit site), but it doesn't stop new software from coming about.

------
yanw
Why pile new laws? if people are really that concerned about internet privacy
they could install privacy software, the same as with parental control
software.

There is no market failure to justify new regulations and advertising is what
pays for the internet, new laws will just increase the barrier to entry and
stifle innovation as everyone will need their lawyers present before launching
anything.

Also this do-not-track concept doesn't make much sense, with phone marketing
people didn't get anything in return here they get free content.

------
killerswan
Unless the bill prohibits loyalty cards at VONS, too, this is just old
business astro-turfing against internet businesses.

~~~
mirkules
Loyalty cards at VONS are opt-in. Which means you, the consumer, have to sign
up for the card, and then choose to use it when you make a purchase. This law
is targeted against the equivalent of walking into a store, someone putting a
tag on you, and tracking what you do now, and forever after you leave the
store, _without your knowledge_.

