> having a DNT header without legislation to back it up is useless :) Well, your website appears to be agnostic on the question! To quote donottrack.us: > Com

> having a DNT header without legislation to back it up is useless :) Well, your website appears to be agnostic on the question! To quote donottrack.us: > Compliance with Do Not Track could be purely voluntary, enforced by industry self-regulation, or mandated by state or federal law. We do not take a position on these alternatives. In all seriousness, I do understand the difference between your individual position (i.e. pro-government) and the project's position, but unless Dr. Mayer has a substantially different opinion (which he may), there probably won't be a huge difference between the project & the individuals. Which is fine. I think the larger point is that it's a LOT more important for the government to actually stop tracking us than for it to beat up on entrepreneurs with yet more new picayune rules and regulations, especially given the current economic climate. Current ways in which the government tracks us: 1. Social Security Card 2. Selective Service Act 3. Driver's License 4. Tax Returns 5. Bank Accounts and Funds Transfers 6. Do Not Fly List One could go on in this vein. A hypothetical brown immigrant entrepreneur who flies a lot and isn't that enthusiastic about potentially being drafted to kill random people in Afghanistan has enough problems with government tracking as it is! In other words: this bill does nothing to address the problem of having hundreds of millions of peoples' personal information in the databases of a bankrupt, militaristic government. Who is being keelhauled for leaking Eliot Spitzer's peccadilloes or Joe the Plumber's unpaid plumbing license? Those kinds of abuses of government databases are a much bigger problem than the comparative ephemera of targeted advertising. The FBI's Carnivore is a lot worse than Amazon's recommendation engine, and by failing to address that directly -- indeed by assuring the government that it will retain backdoors for "national security purposes" -- the FTC push prioritizes all the wrong things. Because if "national security" means that I must surrender my shampoo to the kindly TSA agent in broad daylight, it can mean whatever the government wants it to mean. And I might also point out that the self-same politicians who are drafting this law were among the heaviest users of Rapleaf, and hence are quite likely to carve out "political speech" exemptions for their own tracking campaigns.