3 ms·
In fact, having it on by default is better for people who are privacy conscious. If everyone has it off by default, then no site will implement it. If it's opt-
by gkoberger 8y ago
In fact, having it on by default is better for people who are privacy conscious. If everyone has it off by default, then no site will implement it. If it's opt-out, the average site is more likely to use it rather than using JS tracking.
It's kind of like Do Not Track. Once IE enabled it by default, every single ad network stopped honoring it.
- xaqfox 8y agoHow are ad networks not in violation of the CFAA (computer fraud and abuse act) by not honoring DNT? Surely if I can get in trouble for abusing what a server allows but does not intend then the same should hold true for interactions with a client web browser.
- javagram 8y agoDNT arguably ceased to be a reliable symbol of user intention the moment Microsoft turned it on by default. I doubt Microsoft didn’t realize what they were doing would kill DNT acceptance, but they did it anyway to add a bullet point to their feature list.
- deogeo 8y agoMuch like malware protection ceased to be a reliable symbol of user intention the moment Microsoft turned it on by default.
- javagram 8y agoMalware protection isn’t a signal though, it’s an active process of deleting and blocking. No need or even possibility to interpret it. The analogy in the tracking space would be something like Safari ITP, not DNT.