(Sure, you'd know it was an apple device, but that's still less than currently. It's also less if other browsers followed suit.)
Similarly queryable font and plugin apis are fixed.
But DNT is simply a tracking metric - and was opposed by everyone with non-ad revenue (specifically it was offered up by the ad industry to avoid regulation).
That's what makes it so valuable really. You get little to no entropy for a large portion of users, but you get a huge amount of entropy about the people who aren't.
BTW you can query the WebGL render to identify CPU / GPU information for iOS devices which is slightly more useful than just the UA
> Froze the user-agent string to reduce web compatibility risk and to prevent its use for fingerprinting
> Freeze the version reported as User Agent to OS 10.13.4 (OS 11.3 on iOS) and WebKit 605.1.15
for User Agent purposes.
If I send DNT -> GDPR Opt Out of all tracking
DNT was and always will be an example of how not to implement privacy settings
Congress needs to pass GDPR into law.
It's like leaving your door unlocked and with a sign on it asking criminals to obey your privacy and not enter vs having a lock on the door and not allowing them through until they knock, you can verify who they are and decide at that point whether to open the door to them.
This is a negative user experience. Affiliate links mean that people try to recommend things they get paid to recommend rather than what they actually think is best
If the other major browsers follow suit in considering it "expired" and remove it, I'm curious what effect this will have on the requirement in the California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA) for sites to state how they respond to the signal (more info: https://iapp.org/news/a/how-should-i-respond-to-californias-...).
Will sites legally need to continue explaining how they respond to a signal that effectively no longer exists? Most of them already just said "we don't do anything based on this signal", but that will be even weirder.
Not affiliated, just a happy customer.
Damnit Gizmodo. You had the first part right, that the setting is ignored, then you had to go and make up the reason. These blurred lines between reporting and opinion are the embodiment of fake news. There is a primary fact or two and then subjective garbage.
2 minutes I wont get back..