4 ms·

If legal action would be taken, shouldn't browser have the controls regarding tracking preference? Setting up each page (provided that 'No' would still load pag

by pndy 7y ago

If legal action would be taken, shouldn't browser have the controls regarding tracking preference? Setting up each page (provided that 'No' would still load page in either full or stripped-down variant) on each devices owned and/or reapplying choices whenever browser cache is cleared would be frustrating. Maybe DNT should return as respected feature within browser and user choice shouldn't affect the access to the content but only its form.

toper-centage 7y ago
Exactly. That's how we ended up with the terrible cookie warnings. The funny thing is that GDPR has language about respecting the DNT but no one cares.
- tristador 7y ago
  Is there a good example of a large company that blatantly ignores DNT? I'd guess its hard to know as a lot of the tracking could be server side only.
kube-system 7y ago
DNT is counterproductive from a technical perspective. The more bits of entropy you give trackers, the easier you are to track.
- fauigerzigerk 7y ago
  If DNT was legally binding, they wouldn't be allowed to use that additional bit of entropy. But I would prefer a PTM (please track me) header with legally binding semantics.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    Those who abuse it the most will just move to a jurisdiction where it is allowed. Or they'll do it anyway, since many of the worst threats on the internet are already criminal. On the internet, technical solutions > legal solutions.
    - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
      There are clearly some things that are economically viable as a criminal enterprise, but I don't think tracking people for ad targeting purposes is one of those things. Tracking only pays if you can track a huge number of people and sell ads to a huge number of advertisers. The profit per tracked user is too small to pay for running a criminal enterprise. Moving to a different jurisdiction is impossible as your customers (the advertisers) and the sites/apps where ads are placed would still be breaking the law.
      - kube-system 7y ago
        > There are clearly some things that are economically viable as a criminal enterprise, but I don't think tracking people for ad targeting purposes is one of those things. True, most illicit ads tend to be non-targeted. But some criminals do things like blackmail, fraud, espionage, etc. using tracking data. > Moving to a different jurisdiction is impossible as your customers (the advertisers) and the sites/apps where ads are placed would still be breaking the law. That all depends on the specific business model, business partners, and their presence. Regardless, what I describe is not conjecture, many companies are shuffling around data to avoid GDPR rather than comply. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/facebook-moves-15bn-users-out-of-reach-of-new-european-privacy-law https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/facebook-... A different company without a physical presence or business partner in the jurisdiction in question, might have little to no incentive to follow the law. In the end, even if companies are breaking the law, or even if they are fined, your data won't be protected unless they actually change their behavior as a result. Calculated non-compliance is a commonplace strategy for corporate legal compliance.
        fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        I don't dispute any of that. But what it means is merely that compliance will never be perfect. Companies will always test the limits of the law and look for loopholes. Like with tax compliance, this will always be an arms race. But if the law raises the bar, they will jump a little bit higher on average. It doesn't have to be perfect. Privacy is not black or white, and trackers themselves are anything but perfect. I recently looked at the list of what Google thinks I'm interested in. It's funny. Supposedly, I have a particularly strong interest in vehicles and buying cars. In fact I don't even have a driving licence, never owned a car, never will. The list goes on and on like that. They must have rolled the dice to come up with things like "Flowers" and "American Football". I feel my privacy is completely safe with these geniuses :)

by pndy 7y ago

toper-centage 7y ago

Exactly. That's how we ended up with the terrible cookie warnings. The funny thing is that GDPR has language about respecting the DNT but no one cares.

tristador 7y ago
Is there a good example of a large company that blatantly ignores DNT? I'd guess its hard to know as a lot of the tracking could be server side only.

kube-system 7y ago

DNT is counterproductive from a technical perspective. The more bits of entropy you give trackers, the easier you are to track.

fauigerzigerk 7y ago
If DNT was legally binding, they wouldn't be allowed to use that additional bit of entropy. But I would prefer a PTM (please track me) header with legally binding semantics.
- kube-system 7y ago
  Those who abuse it the most will just move to a jurisdiction where it is allowed. Or they'll do it anyway, since many of the worst threats on the internet are already criminal. On the internet, technical solutions > legal solutions.
  - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
    There are clearly some things that are economically viable as a criminal enterprise, but I don't think tracking people for ad targeting purposes is one of those things. Tracking only pays if you can track a huge number of people and sell ads to a huge number of advertisers. The profit per tracked user is too small to pay for running a criminal enterprise. Moving to a different jurisdiction is impossible as your customers (the advertisers) and the sites/apps where ads are placed would still be breaking the law.
    - kube-system 7y ago
      > There are clearly some things that are economically viable as a criminal enterprise, but I don't think tracking people for ad targeting purposes is one of those things. True, most illicit ads tend to be non-targeted. But some criminals do things like blackmail, fraud, espionage, etc. using tracking data. > Moving to a different jurisdiction is impossible as your customers (the advertisers) and the sites/apps where ads are placed would still be breaking the law. That all depends on the specific business model, business partners, and their presence. Regardless, what I describe is not conjecture, many companies are shuffling around data to avoid GDPR rather than comply. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/facebook-moves-15bn-users-out-of-reach-of-new-european-privacy-law https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/19/facebook-... A different company without a physical presence or business partner in the jurisdiction in question, might have little to no incentive to follow the law. In the end, even if companies are breaking the law, or even if they are fined, your data won't be protected unless they actually change their behavior as a result. Calculated non-compliance is a commonplace strategy for corporate legal compliance.
      - fauigerzigerk 7y ago
        I don't dispute any of that. But what it means is merely that compliance will never be perfect. Companies will always test the limits of the law and look for loopholes. Like with tax compliance, this will always be an arms race. But if the law raises the bar, they will jump a little bit higher on average. It doesn't have to be perfect. Privacy is not black or white, and trackers themselves are anything but perfect. I recently looked at the list of what Google thinks I'm interested in. It's funny. Supposedly, I have a particularly strong interest in vehicles and buying cars. In fact I don't even have a driving licence, never owned a car, never will. The list goes on and on like that. They must have rolled the dice to come up with things like "Flowers" and "American Football". I feel my privacy is completely safe with these geniuses :)