5 ms·

But how many users disable JavaScript in their browser to prevent tracking? And is the fact that a website can track all your clicks and mouse movements a priva

But how many users disable JavaScript in their browser to prevent tracking? And is the fact that a website can track all your clicks and mouse movements a privacy/security issue to begin with? Isn’t it by design that the website you’re visiting can track you?

oneeyedpigeon 9y ago
> by design By design, the web is a "1. send me the document <-> 2. here it is" transaction, not a series of many small notifications. By design, the url() property almost certainly wasn't intended to be dynamic. This is clearly 'bending the established rules' — cleverly, admittedly.
- dahart 9y ago
  > By design, the web is a "1. send me the document <-> 2. here it is" transaction, not a series of many small notifications. That was true in 1998, but most of the web has been turning, by design, into what you might call a series of many small notifications ever since then. Gmail's been doing it since 2004. Today, almost all large sites are running Google Analytics or something like it, which track everything this article discusses, and operates on constant micro transactions. All web apps are built on many small notifications, and many of them even use websockets which was explicitly, by design, built for streams of micro transactions. > By design, the url() property almost certainly wasn't intended to be dynamic. This is clearly 'bending the established rules' There was never a rule against, even if dynamic usage wasn't expected or imagined (which I find unlikely). CSS allows it, therefore it's allowed by design.
- kowdermeister 9y ago
  Wishful thinking, but today the web is clearly, obviously not a simple document retrieval system. It's now an application platform regardless you like it or not.
- SimeVidas 9y ago
  The `url()` function wasn’t intended for tracking, sure. But my point is that it doesn’t matter, since it is accepted that the website you’re on can track you to begin with. I don’t think anyone in the standards bodies is trying to prevent that.

oneeyedpigeon 9y ago

> by design By design, the web is a "1. send me the document <-> 2. here it is" transaction, not a series of many small notifications. By design, the url() property almost certainly wasn't intended to be dynamic. This is clearly 'bending the established rules' — cleverly, admittedly.

dahart 9y ago
> By design, the web is a "1. send me the document <-> 2. here it is" transaction, not a series of many small notifications. That was true in 1998, but most of the web has been turning, by design, into what you might call a series of many small notifications ever since then. Gmail's been doing it since 2004. Today, almost all large sites are running Google Analytics or something like it, which track everything this article discusses, and operates on constant micro transactions. All web apps are built on many small notifications, and many of them even use websockets which was explicitly, by design, built for streams of micro transactions. > By design, the url() property almost certainly wasn't intended to be dynamic. This is clearly 'bending the established rules' There was never a rule against, even if dynamic usage wasn't expected or imagined (which I find unlikely). CSS allows it, therefore it's allowed by design.
kowdermeister 9y ago
Wishful thinking, but today the web is clearly, obviously not a simple document retrieval system. It's now an application platform regardless you like it or not.
SimeVidas 9y ago
The `url()` function wasn’t intended for tracking, sure. But my point is that it doesn’t matter, since it is accepted that the website you’re on can track you to begin with. I don’t think anyone in the standards bodies is trying to prevent that.