

Do not track is dying - sonabinu
http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/30/technology/do-not-track/index.html?iid=HP_LN

======
Millennium
Of course it's dying. There is no acceptable solution that isn't on by
default, and advertisers will never accept that because nobody would ever turn
it off. Their business model would dry up and die. So they block it at every
opportunity, because what else are they going to do? Change to a business
model based on things people actually want? Ha! What an idea.

~~~
mibbitier
I want advertising. It tells me about things I might like.

You're perhaps one of the very very few people who dislike being told about
things, but thankfully you're in the minority.

The whole "do not track us" idea is ridiculous and a 'moot' issue. Cookies
aren't really necessary, you can track people server side based on their
browser make up, and they won't know they're being tracked. 99.9% of browsers
are completely unique and identifiable back to the computer.

If you _really_ don't want to be tracked (<0.01% of users), then use TOR,
lynx, adblock, disallow cookies, etc etc etc

Look also at the recent EU cookie laws, and how ridiculous and needlessly
cumbersome they have made websites that have addopted it. Endless clicking
confirmation boxes / dropdowns to say it's ok for them to store a cookie. We
do not need more of this madness.

~~~
Karunamon
>I want advertising. It tells me about things I might like.

I hate advertising. Usually the ads are irrelevant and for things I do not and
would not ever want, are often scammy, sometimes they carry malware, often get
in the way of me retrieving the information I went to a site to see..

I bet if I counted every time I clicked on an advertisement in the last
decade, that number would be less than 20.

That said, I agree completely the "tracking" worries are absurd and more borne
out of FUD than any concrete privacy issue.

>Look also at the recent EU cookie laws, and how ridiculous and needlessly
cumbersome they have made websites that have addopted it.

Due to shoddy implementation of a shoddy law - that does not reflect
whatsoever on the concept. And cumbersome? Really? Could you point to an
example site?

~~~
mibbitier
The worst implementations "drop down" a message at the top of the page to tell
me they're using cookies. This invariably happens just as I'm clicking on a
link. The link moves, and I click on some link I didn't want to click on.

There are no words strong enough to describe how shitty that is, and it's
incredibly common, on big, widely used websites.

~~~
PJones
Recently became required by the EU for all websites to notify users of
cookies, so don't expect the notifications to go away. Better implementations
don't move content around the page though.

~~~
mibbitier
I expect us (UK) to withdraw from the EU in the next few years, so hopefully
it'll become irrelevant.

------
NaturalDoc
That this is even a debate is preposterous to me. I am a buyer. I love to
shop. I also love the internet. What I don't love is being FORCED to view
advertising I have no desire to view. Is advertising a right? If so, I've
certainly never heard of it. I personally could not care less if internet
advertisers dropped dead of starvation. They have no inherent right to follow
me around to check out what I am doing in my personal time just so they can
MAYBE get me to buy something that will put money in their pockets and food in
their mouths. I think it is time to send advertisers a message (SOPA/PIPA
style). I think it is time to send congress a message that states that we DO
NOT WANT forced advertising and we will not be silent until we get it. Opt-In
is the only acceptable choice for a free society.

I certainly understand the ad industry wanting to make enough money to eat. I
also understand the importance of advertising. It is a great way to raise
capital while offering viewers a chance to see what products and services are
out there. It is also a great way to financially support a site. I have made
many purchases due to great advertising. But is it really their right to force
ads on us while we have no right to a simple "leave me alone" button? Maybe
there could be an option version of "do not track" that allows advertising
based on the SITE information or adblocking that removes ALL ads. Then let the
consumer choose. I would certainly accept a non-tracking option most of the
time. Am I completely unique in this?

As for the argument that viewers will not opt-in to advertising, I simply
laugh. I use "do not track" and ad blocking implementations extensively.
However, I turn it off (my version of opting in to advertising) for family
birthdays, anniversaries, and especially holidays. How else will I find the
best deals? However, the rest of the time, I have absolutely no desire to see
any Web page containing 50% (conservative for some sites) advertising. Unless
I am completely unique in this world, I cannot imagine that I am the only
individual who does this.

Again, why is a consumers right to be tracked or advertised versus a company's
right to track me and advertise to me even a debate?

~~~
icebraining
_Is advertising a right? If so, I've certainly never heard of it._

Advertising is speech (tracking aside). On one's own site, yes, we have a
right to advertise.

 _I think it is time to send congress a message that states that we DO NOT
WANT forced advertising and we will not be silent until we get it._

If you don't want advertising, you're free not to use websites with ads.
Please don't fuck with free speech just because you don't like them.

Now, tracking is (IMO) a different issue and yes, it should be opt-in.

~~~
thaumaturgy
OK, advertising is speech, sure (I suppose). But, there's no right to demand
that anyone listen to you; I am still free to peel the logo off my car, remove
the tag from my shirt, fast-forward past commercials, tear pages out of
magazines.

And that's the problem with trying to use protected speech as a defense for
advertising: all that does is protect your right to use it; it does not force
me to also use it. Once the content is loaded on my browser, on my computer, I
have the right to do with it whatever I please -- including automatically
block any of the pieces that I don't want.

You're free to have advertising on your site. I'm free to not download any of
it. Freedom is great!

~~~
icebraining
Sure, but that's not really a contention point. Even Google, the biggest
advertiser, lets you install AdBlock from their own "Web store":
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiob...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom)

------
nodata
'"The advertisers have been extraordinarily obstructionist, raising the same
issues over and over again, forcing new issues that were not on the agenda,
adding new issues that have been closed, and launching personal attacks," said
Jonathan Mayer, a Stanford privacy researcher and Do Not Track technology
developer who is involved in the negotiations.'

So get a better Chair.

------
eggsby
DNT is pretty laughably ill conceived. Vague definitions of what is able to be
tracked, what constitutes a first party and third party (Is a browser vendor
first party or third party?). Some of the major proponents are companies like
Google and Microsoft, both with their respective gigantic ad platforms DART
and Atlas. Would they be able to collect data directly from the browser and
dominate the ad world? It's certain that if this were legislated that it would
destroy the business model for many large companies. (Yahoo, ValueClick, AOL).

The existing legislation requires an opt-out policy from tracking. Advertisers
must respect the user's choice with regards to targeted advertising. Does
Microsoft turning on DNT by default represent the users choice or does it
represent Microsoft's interests? What about third party identification for
things like disqus? Sure we have ways to handle CORS today but what if there
was a law (that only effected the USA) saying you were not allowed to "track"
if you were a third party? If it's just about advancing web technologies why
isn't this just a w3c proposal or RFC? What's wrong with the existing opt-out
methods?

From what I see DNT is just a political tactic to gain power in the ad-world,
not a way to protect the privacy of users.

------
yalogin
Of course its dying. It's compeltely impractical and almost comical. There wa
no reason to believe it would amount to anything but a publication in some
journal.

------
splawn
This might be a naive idea, but it seems like you could throw noise into their
system by having a program send out random requests, making their data less
valuable.

~~~
sonabinu
How would this work in a real world scenario?

~~~
splawn
Maybe something like a browser plugin that would work like selenium ,but
instead of scripting it with test cases, it could be fed by a service
providing it with urls with the intention of throwing off anything data-mining
your traffic across sites by giving it false data-points. Im not an expert
though... for all i know, what im describing might be impossible or like
fighting a rhino with a wet sponge.

------
rmc
Instead some regions have been outright making tracking without opt in
illegal, e.g. the EU.

