5 ms·
I think that a lot of Google and Facebook’s creepyness would go away if they’d just voluntarily respect the Do Not Track header. There’s no techical reason why
by Lio 8y ago
I think that a lot of Google and Facebook’s creepyness would go away if they’d just voluntarily respect the Do Not Track header.
There’s no techical reason why don’t, just business ethics.
That header is someone explicitly telling Google “I don’t want you to do this” _before_ collection happens and Google’s response is “we don’t give a shit what you want” and doing it anyway.
The current model where you have to register with Google or Facebook and then hunt down all the options to clear data just doesn’t cut it because they’re still using that data. They just clearing it after use or hiding that collection or use from you.
Facebook and Google could be looking at BATs as a way forward for targeted advertising without user tracking but they’re not in the “not creepy” business.
- fipple 8y agoGoogle does actually clear that data. It persists in some backups for awhile but it’s never used again.
- Lio 8y agoDo they clear it without using it and if they do use it to they clear the results of that use?
- fipple 8y agoDon’t understand the question. Say you have 10 million records across 50 systems. You clear data, each of those systems does a delete by userid, but then the collection starts again as of your next click.
- Lio 8y agoWhat I'm getting at is Calgoo's point. If Google/Facebook use my data before they get the request to delete it will they also delete the output of that processing?
- fipple 8y agoNo, but Google will retrain their personalization features post-delete so you’ll start from a clean slate but ML models for spam filtering etc. will not be changed until a re-train.
- calgoo 8y agoAnd to follow up on this, if some AI model is trained using the data, is that AI model then trashed and redone without the dataset?
- UncleMeat 8y agoGDPR doesn't demand that you destroy all features created with the help of user data.
- Lio 8y agoMaybe it doesn't I'm certainly no expert on GDPR but it does highlight how Google/Facebook are crossing the creepy line. These companies are treating privacy legislation as they treat tax legislation. That is, they're using legal loop holes to be as legally creepy as they can without respecting the spirit of the law.
- vatueil 8y agoMicrosoft turning DNT on for all Windows users automatically pretty much killed the movement's momentum. While privacy as the default has strong arguments going for it, as a practical matter since DNT was supposed to be an intentional signal Microsoft's mass-flagging effectively drowned the signal in noise. And those who didn't know better lauded them for it, too.
- Lio 8y agoEven if Microsoft turned DNT on by default Google/Facebook should still respect it. They could ask users to turn it off in the same way they bug people to install their software. Alternatively they could work on business models that don’t rely on collecting massive amounts of personal data about people who don’t want them to do that. E.g. Basic Attention Tokens and others.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- vatueil 8y agoSure, you could wish for that, but if we could have everything you wished for we probably wouldn't need DNT in the first place. Since DNT was specifically raised, bringing up how Microsoft's hug of death killed it seemed pertinent.
- Lio 8y agoThat still sounds like we have a problem with Google/Facebook and not with Microsoft turning it on by default. The default behaviour for Google/Facebook should be not to track people that aren't logged in to their services. That should go double for people who are not just neutral but explicitly telling them "really, don't track me" in a header. There is no justification of "we're just improving services" for people who are telling you "I don't want to use your service and I don't want to help you improve your services."
- threatofrain 8y agoBut doesn't this signal also make you easier to track?
- krageon 8y agoThey made the current model the way it is on purpose, so that it is difficult to turn off and the average user won't do it. Following that logic it's not exactly hard to see why they'll never respect that header unless their arm is twisted. This is the sort of ethics that should be expected from companies. To my mind, the DNT header is nice to have but almost breathtakingly naive. The real solutions lie in the direction of having the lack of tracking be enforced by the client, who (you hope) has a vested interest in their own privacy.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago> To my mind, the DNT header is nice to have but almost breathtakingly naive. Yes, and to me it's also evidence of lack of morals in the companies, and of a need to regulate it. The way I see it, GDPR should consider DNT as explicit refusal to grant consent to tracking, with all legal consequences if ignored.
- LiterallyDoge 8y agoThat's a very interesting perspective and it makes sense, especially if Do Not Track is optional and off by default.
- _cs2017_ 8y agoI think the right wing conspiracy groups who made this video couldn't care less if FB and Google respect DNT. https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/19/17878332/creepy-line-anti-google-facebook-conservative-censorship-documentary-review-right-wing https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/19/17878332/creepy-line-anti...
- gaius 8y agojust voluntarily respect the Do Not Track header. It’s not even that, it’s browser fingerprinting and everything. There is no honest reason to track logged-out users, full stop. And they knew that too, at some meeting someone said “we need to track people who don’t want or expect us to track them” and everyone nodded and the geeks all said, “hey I’ve got an idea”
- Lio 8y agoYes, I totally agree. Do Not Track is just another signal much like being logged out. These are deliberate violations and the people working for Google/Facebook must know that. They are deliberately working around attempts to stop them tracking people. They must know that.
- mcnesium 8y agoGoogle and Facebook are the first proof for why the Do Not Track header is bullshit. Privacy should be the default, and if I for some reason want to be sniffed all around the web, I can happily opt-in.
- giancarlostoro 8y agoI wish the GDPR had enforced this. It would be nice, though sad that it would have to be a law. If congress and the EU would push for it, things might get interesting. Ads based on content are what I prefer anyway.
- Lio 8y agoWith BATs you can have the best of both worlds. The difference is that you control the tracking information and can choose not to share it or delete it at any given time.
- bogomipz 8y agoWhat are BATs? I am not familiar with this acronym.
- fzzzy 8y agoBasic Attention Token. Part of the Brave browser.
- bogomipz 8y agoThanks for the info. I was only vaguely aware of Brave. This is fascinating. Cheers!
- Lio 8y agohttps://basicattentiontoken.org/ https://basicattentiontoken.org/ They provide a way for a user to hold information about the ads they want to see. They allow you to financially support websites that show useful ads without the need for user tracking by a third party outside of your browser. They do a lot more than that too so I'd suggest having a look at the above link or Brendan Eich's new start up https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/ There's nothing proprietary about them though and Google could switch to this model in Chrome if they wanted ....if they wanted.