Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Oct 2012 23:06 UTC
Internet & Networking "With the fate of our beloved internet economy allegedly at stake, perhaps it's a good time to examine what Do Not Track is. How did the standard came to be, what does it do, and how does it stand to change online advertising? Is it as innocuous as privacy advocates make it sound, or does it stand to jeopardize the free, ad-supported internet we've all come to rely on?" Do Not Track is inherently flawed because it gives people a false sense of security. Other than perhaps well-known and accountable sites, nobody's going to abide by it anyway. We don't need nonsense like DNT - we need to educate people about that 'private browsing' button. Everybody's already using it for porn anyway; shouldn't be hard to let people know what other things it can be used for.
Permalink for comment 538524
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ssokolow
by ssokolow on Fri 12th Oct 2012 23:36 UTC
Member since:

I was always lead to believe that Do Not Track was intended to obsolete per-company opt-out cookies.

Basically, as an alternative to extensions like TACO and Keep My Opt-Outs which install a massive list of company-specific opt-out cookies in your browser and protect them from tools which might flush them out while clearing other cookies.

That also seems to be how advertising companies which sign on are treating it... as a simpler way to meet the voluntary opt-out commitments they've made to avoid being slapped with legislation.

That's why it's important that browsers have it turned off by default. (They really should have chosen a name that makes the intent more obvious. Something with "Opt-Out" in the spec's title like "Unified Tracking Opt-Out")

Edited 2012-10-12 23:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3