5 ms·

DNT also needs an equivalent "Do Track" header (dnt: 0?). That way people who want to opt in without clicking boxes can, and lack of the header can't be miscons

DNT also needs an equivalent "Do Track" header (dnt: 0?). That way people who want to opt in without clicking boxes can, and lack of the header can't be misconstrued as consent. edit: uallo points out below that this is the specification. I didn't realize because none of the browsers implement it.

qwerty456127 6y ago
Although I'm very anti-tracking, I don't think the don-not-track policy should be the default. This is not going to work this way. The whole DNT thing has actually been killed by Microsoft setting it on by default. Let the people who don't care to go and toggle the checkbox in the browser settings be tracked. It also should be possible to set the DNT field on per-domain basis.
- Pesthuf 6y ago
  It absolutely shouldn't. Advertisers STILL cite that Microsoft incident as the reason they don't support DNT, even though this happened 8 years ago. Just goes to show how dishonest they are. Ironically they don't ignore DNT - they use it as part of their fingerprinting... I think if DNT was per Domain, advertisers would let your browser make a bunch of requests to different domains and check for which you have DNT set, which should give a fairly unique fingerprint...
- corty 6y ago
  DNT wasn't killed by Microsoft. DNT was killed by advertisers looking for any reason to kill DNT. They just found Microsoft's default as their excuse to ignore DNT.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  Nothing to do with MS. Moreover, Safari is removing DNT because DNT is now used as an extra parameter in browser fingerprinting ... to better track users.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  That seems very sour grapes - a major vendor said that it's gonna ship a browser with a setting configured, and everyone chooses to ignore that setting because it's common? That's pathologic thinking.
- Nursie 6y ago
  Do Not Track was always a joke. As if asking nicely ever worked with the ad industry. The point of the law changes is that it becomes the website's responsibility to act properly, and ensure real opt-in. If DNT was default off and was respected, most people would have never heard of it to switch it on. That's the only reason the ad industry even comment on it - it was designed to do nothing.
  - qwerty456127 6y ago
    > The point of the law changes is that it becomes the website's responsibility to act properly, and ensure real opt-in. Yet they still don't. They just manipulate the user into clicking yes without reading, again. I couldn't even find how to deny "the Oath" no matter how hard I tried.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      The Oath pages are the worst. Blatant violation. Hopefully sometime it will be prosecuted. Until then treat as a big red flag.
uallo 6y ago
> dnt: 0 Yes, that is exactly how it was specified: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DNT https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DN...
Izkata 6y ago
> I didn't realize because none of the browsers implement it. It's in Firefox under Preferences -> Privacy and Security -> bottom of Enhanced Tracking Protection. Or just search for "do not track". Privacy Badger has a separate setting (enabled by default) if you have that addon installed, and the header is sent if it's enabled in either place. I know about these because I had a hell of a time at work adding Mixpanel to something. They respect this header. Unfortunately, I think it also means we underestimate the number of Firefox users we have.
- smichel17 6y ago
  Firefox lets you set 'DNT: 1' if you don't want to be tracked, using the setting you describe, but does not have a setting to send 'DNT: 0', indicating that you are okay being tracked. As a result, there is ambiguity about whether lack of a header means nothing or means "tracking is ok". If browsers let you broadcast your willingness to be tracked, advertisers wouldn't be able to make the (bad faith) argument that it's ok to track just because someone didn't set the header.

qwerty456127 6y ago

Although I'm very anti-tracking, I don't think the don-not-track policy should be the default. This is not going to work this way. The whole DNT thing has actually been killed by Microsoft setting it on by default. Let the people who don't care to go and toggle the checkbox in the browser settings be tracked. It also should be possible to set the DNT field on per-domain basis.

Pesthuf 6y ago
It absolutely shouldn't. Advertisers STILL cite that Microsoft incident as the reason they don't support DNT, even though this happened 8 years ago. Just goes to show how dishonest they are. Ironically they don't ignore DNT - they use it as part of their fingerprinting... I think if DNT was per Domain, advertisers would let your browser make a bunch of requests to different domains and check for which you have DNT set, which should give a fairly unique fingerprint...
corty 6y ago
DNT wasn't killed by Microsoft. DNT was killed by advertisers looking for any reason to kill DNT. They just found Microsoft's default as their excuse to ignore DNT.
dmitriid 6y ago
Nothing to do with MS. Moreover, Safari is removing DNT because DNT is now used as an extra parameter in browser fingerprinting ... to better track users.
freeone3000 6y ago
That seems very sour grapes - a major vendor said that it's gonna ship a browser with a setting configured, and everyone chooses to ignore that setting because it's common? That's pathologic thinking.
Nursie 6y ago
Do Not Track was always a joke. As if asking nicely ever worked with the ad industry. The point of the law changes is that it becomes the website's responsibility to act properly, and ensure real opt-in. If DNT was default off and was respected, most people would have never heard of it to switch it on. That's the only reason the ad industry even comment on it - it was designed to do nothing.
- qwerty456127 6y ago
  > The point of the law changes is that it becomes the website's responsibility to act properly, and ensure real opt-in. Yet they still don't. They just manipulate the user into clicking yes without reading, again. I couldn't even find how to deny "the Oath" no matter how hard I tried.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    The Oath pages are the worst. Blatant violation. Hopefully sometime it will be prosecuted. Until then treat as a big red flag.

uallo 6y ago

> dnt: 0 Yes, that is exactly how it was specified: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DNT https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/DN...

Izkata 6y ago

> I didn't realize because none of the browsers implement it. It's in Firefox under Preferences -> Privacy and Security -> bottom of Enhanced Tracking Protection. Or just search for "do not track". Privacy Badger has a separate setting (enabled by default) if you have that addon installed, and the header is sent if it's enabled in either place. I know about these because I had a hell of a time at work adding Mixpanel to something. They respect this header. Unfortunately, I think it also means we underestimate the number of Firefox users we have.

smichel17 6y ago
Firefox lets you set 'DNT: 1' if you don't want to be tracked, using the setting you describe, but does not have a setting to send 'DNT: 0', indicating that you are okay being tracked. As a result, there is ambiguity about whether lack of a header means nothing or means "tracking is ok". If browsers let you broadcast your willingness to be tracked, advertisers wouldn't be able to make the (bad faith) argument that it's ok to track just because someone didn't set the header.