7 ms·

Apple Is Removing 'Do Not Track' from Safari

99 points by Varcht 8y ago

trumped 8y ago
the "do not track" setting probably helps advertisers track users because it creates a more unique configuration/fingerprint... personally, I still use it in Firefox but probably should not since there are no consequences for them if they don't honor it.
- wyxuan 8y ago
  Its true, I don't know why you are being downvoted
  - nullandvoid 8y ago
    I haven't down voted but I would imagine it's because it's just repeating the article and some what obvious
    - trumped 8y ago
      if it is so obvious, why did hundreds of engineers decide to implement it anyways?
- baroffoos 8y ago
  Leave it on whatever the default is on firefox. Thats the best way to avoid extra identification.
chrischen 8y ago
Save you from reading the article 1) Nobody obeys it 2) It's actually being used as a heuristic to track users through fingerprinting
- jimktrains2 8y ago
  If (2) was a huge issue for them, wouldn't removing the UA header help tremendously as well? (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.)
  - gruez 8y ago
    iOS user agents aren't very identifying. Despite having multiple version numbers in them, all they pretty much tell you is 1) what type of ios device it is (eg. iphone or ipad) and 2) what ios version it is (mobile safari is updated along with ios, so the version numbers are pretty much the same for the same ios release). Considering that most ios users are up to date, you'll be hard pressed to squeeze more than a few bits of entropy from it.
    - maccard 8y ago
      >Considering that most ios users are up to date, 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.
      - vegardx 8y ago
        So you get amazing entropy on my grandma, which is quite possibly not worth the processing time you spent to track her, in terms of ad revenue or marketing campaigns. Sure - that's probably not the case in most of the cases, but it sure pollutes your otherwise good dataset.
    - youngtaff 8y ago
      I think part of the advantage of DNT for fingerprinting is that it's a user set signal. BTW you can query the WebGL render to identify CPU / GPU information for iOS devices which is slightly more useful than just the UA
  - sf_rob 8y ago
    IMO 2) is a PR move. Removing 1 bit of data isn't going to do much for anti-fingerprinting.
rubyfan 8y ago
It was a well intentioned toothless innovation that didn’t work. I’m pretty happy with Safari’s content filters (using FireFox Focus) that actually help me from being tracked.
- pdimitar 8y ago
  1Bocker X is more efficient. I tried both that and Firefox Focus. Not affiliated, just a happy customer.
kerng 8y ago
The way this is written makes it obvious that the author has an agenda altogether and dislikes the idea of this feature. It's written with a very condescending undertone. Nothing wrong with that of course, just might be nice to be transparent around it. 2 minutes I wont get back..
- sazfedjhrgnukc 8y ago
  Yeah I like how neutral and uncondescending your comment is. Definitely worth the 30 seconds I spent reading it.
  - WD-42 8y ago
    You are a very slow reader.
  - nawgszy 8y ago
    Slow reader, eh?
- eridius 8y ago
  People do tend to dislike features that don't work.
mishurov 8y ago
Obviously only monkeys use Apple, these inferior creatures buy into every gimmick by Apple which exploits their desire to believe that they're better than others. As gimmick kicked off and got profit, they ditch it until the next one.
cronix 8y ago
It was a stupid premise to begin with. "Oh, please, here's all of my stuff, but I'm asking you to not track me. I trust you won't" vs "I don't trust you and block all 3rd party cookies and scripts from being accessed by my machine except those I know and trust and explicitly allow through" 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.
- stordoff 8y ago
  You can do both though - limit the amount of information you do send _and_ ask those that do respect it not to track the information you _must_ send.
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    Look I think we all know which is more likely to work in practice. It's sad that Do Not Track never took off, but let's not pretend to be surprised.
  - baroffoos 8y ago
    Its a completely pointless setting. No user would chose to be tracked and no tracker wants to shut down their business. You don't need a setting for it because everyone wants the same thing.
    - fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
      I have no issues with websites tracking my usage, as long as the tracking scripts aren’t making my browsing experience miserable. And, especially for things like affiliate links, I’d like to make sure that the people that influence my decision to purchase an item get some credit for it.
      - baroffoos 8y ago
        >I’d like to make sure that the people that influence my decision to purchase an item get some credit for it. 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
frereubu 8y ago
A shame, although I can see the logic behind the decision. We use this on sites we build so we don't even need to show those visitors a cookie notice, and just assume they don't want Google Analytics turned on.
Deimorz 8y ago
W3C changed the DNT Candidate Recommendation to a "Note" now, and says that the working group is closed: https://github.com/w3c/dnt/commit/5d85d6c3d116b5eb29fddc69352a77d87dfd2310 https://github.com/w3c/dnt/commit/5d85d6c3d116b5eb29fddc6935... (the page is here: https://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-dnt/ https://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-dnt/) 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-do-not-track-requirements/ 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.
NelsonMinar 8y ago
The contempt that tracking companies showed to this feature killed it. But it also provides the perfect ethical justification for me blocking trackers and their ads. You didn't listen to me when I politely asked you to respect my privacy, so now it's scorched earth.
- apple4ever 8y ago
  That's how I feel. We warned them that they should either fix their ads or we would take more drastic steps. They did not listen.
- skrowl 8y ago
  I was literally just talking about this with a friend last weekend. We were discussing if blocking ads was in effect stealing content from the people trying to monetize their content by running the ads in the first place. I said "I wouldn't mind just seeing a generic ad on a page that was shown to me at random, but the bastards try to track everything you do to better target you."
kodablah 8y ago
> almost no websites actually honor the request not to be tracked because the government never forced them to comply with it. 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.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

99 points by Varcht 8y ago

the "do not track" setting probably helps advertisers track users because it creates a more unique configuration/fingerprint... personally, I still use it in Firefox but probably should not since there are no consequences for them if they don't honor it.

wyxuan 8y ago
Its true, I don't know why you are being downvoted
- nullandvoid 8y ago
  I haven't down voted but I would imagine it's because it's just repeating the article and some what obvious
  - trumped 8y ago
    if it is so obvious, why did hundreds of engineers decide to implement it anyways?
baroffoos 8y ago
Leave it on whatever the default is on firefox. Thats the best way to avoid extra identification.

chrischen 8y ago

Save you from reading the article 1) Nobody obeys it 2) It's actually being used as a heuristic to track users through fingerprinting

jimktrains2 8y ago
If (2) was a huge issue for them, wouldn't removing the UA header help tremendously as well? (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.)
- gruez 8y ago
  iOS user agents aren't very identifying. Despite having multiple version numbers in them, all they pretty much tell you is 1) what type of ios device it is (eg. iphone or ipad) and 2) what ios version it is (mobile safari is updated along with ios, so the version numbers are pretty much the same for the same ios release). Considering that most ios users are up to date, you'll be hard pressed to squeeze more than a few bits of entropy from it.
  - maccard 8y ago
    >Considering that most ios users are up to date, 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.
    - vegardx 8y ago
      So you get amazing entropy on my grandma, which is quite possibly not worth the processing time you spent to track her, in terms of ad revenue or marketing campaigns. Sure - that's probably not the case in most of the cases, but it sure pollutes your otherwise good dataset.
  - youngtaff 8y ago
    I think part of the advantage of DNT for fingerprinting is that it's a user set signal. BTW you can query the WebGL render to identify CPU / GPU information for iOS devices which is slightly more useful than just the UA
- sf_rob 8y ago
  IMO 2) is a PR move. Removing 1 bit of data isn't going to do much for anti-fingerprinting.

rubyfan 8y ago

It was a well intentioned toothless innovation that didn’t work. I’m pretty happy with Safari’s content filters (using FireFox Focus) that actually help me from being tracked.

pdimitar 8y ago
1Bocker X is more efficient. I tried both that and Firefox Focus. Not affiliated, just a happy customer.

kerng 8y ago

The way this is written makes it obvious that the author has an agenda altogether and dislikes the idea of this feature. It's written with a very condescending undertone. Nothing wrong with that of course, just might be nice to be transparent around it. 2 minutes I wont get back..

sazfedjhrgnukc 8y ago
Yeah I like how neutral and uncondescending your comment is. Definitely worth the 30 seconds I spent reading it.
- WD-42 8y ago
  You are a very slow reader.
- nawgszy 8y ago
  Slow reader, eh?
eridius 8y ago
People do tend to dislike features that don't work.

mishurov 8y ago

Obviously only monkeys use Apple, these inferior creatures buy into every gimmick by Apple which exploits their desire to believe that they're better than others. As gimmick kicked off and got profit, they ditch it until the next one.

cronix 8y ago

It was a stupid premise to begin with. "Oh, please, here's all of my stuff, but I'm asking you to not track me. I trust you won't" vs "I don't trust you and block all 3rd party cookies and scripts from being accessed by my machine except those I know and trust and explicitly allow through" 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.

stordoff 8y ago
You can do both though - limit the amount of information you do send _and_ ask those that do respect it not to track the information you _must_ send.
- ggggtez 8y ago
  Look I think we all know which is more likely to work in practice. It's sad that Do Not Track never took off, but let's not pretend to be surprised.
- baroffoos 8y ago
  Its a completely pointless setting. No user would chose to be tracked and no tracker wants to shut down their business. You don't need a setting for it because everyone wants the same thing.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 8y ago
    I have no issues with websites tracking my usage, as long as the tracking scripts aren’t making my browsing experience miserable. And, especially for things like affiliate links, I’d like to make sure that the people that influence my decision to purchase an item get some credit for it.
    - baroffoos 8y ago
      >I’d like to make sure that the people that influence my decision to purchase an item get some credit for it. 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

frereubu 8y ago

A shame, although I can see the logic behind the decision. We use this on sites we build so we don't even need to show those visitors a cookie notice, and just assume they don't want Google Analytics turned on.

Deimorz 8y ago

W3C changed the DNT Candidate Recommendation to a "Note" now, and says that the working group is closed: https://github.com/w3c/dnt/commit/5d85d6c3d116b5eb29fddc69352a77d87dfd2310 https://github.com/w3c/dnt/commit/5d85d6c3d116b5eb29fddc6935... (the page is here: https://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-dnt/ https://www.w3.org/TR/tracking-dnt/) 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-do-not-track-requirements/ 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.

NelsonMinar 8y ago

The contempt that tracking companies showed to this feature killed it. But it also provides the perfect ethical justification for me blocking trackers and their ads. You didn't listen to me when I politely asked you to respect my privacy, so now it's scorched earth.

apple4ever 8y ago
That's how I feel. We warned them that they should either fix their ads or we would take more drastic steps. They did not listen.
skrowl 8y ago
I was literally just talking about this with a friend last weekend. We were discussing if blocking ads was in effect stealing content from the people trying to monetize their content by running the ads in the first place. I said "I wouldn't mind just seeing a generic ad on a page that was shown to me at random, but the bastards try to track everything you do to better target you."

kodablah 8y ago

> almost no websites actually honor the request not to be tracked because the government never forced them to comply with it. 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.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]