4 ms·

DNT is not about blocking ads. It's about signaling that you don't want to be profiled for advertising purposes. If you don't mind being profiled for targeted a

DNT is not about blocking ads. It's about signaling that you don't want to be profiled for advertising purposes. If you don't mind being profiled for targeted ads, then don't flip the switch.

eli 16y ago
I know, that's what I said. But if you really don't want to be tracked, can you trust marketers to respect this header? If not, what's the point?
- bad_user 16y ago
  The point is that some marketers are still honest and some also realize that it's smart to not piss off people, but there's no easy to use flagging mechanism that would signal your disapproval without user-experience suffering badly. Also, some marketers might be honest, but that data may end-up in the wrong hands eventually. So if you care about privacy, any period of time in which you aren't tracked is a net win for your privacy. Not to mention that this flag may end up being a useful argument in case of a lawsuit.
  - eli 16y ago
    http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp doesn't require any special browser support
  - spoondan 16y ago
    The point is that some marketers are still honest So DNT is a mechanism for blocking the honest marketers that we trust to respect our communicated wishes, while still permitting the dishonest marketers to do what they will? As far as I can tell, DNT requires enforcement legislation to be effective. some also realize that it's smart to not piss off people How would someone tell that an advertiser is not respecting DNT and therefore be pissed off? Looking for suspicious cookies from third-party sites? The ads seem too personalized?
- lawnchair_larry 16y ago
  You can trust them to respect it about as much as you can trust them to respect the opposing proposition, which is their "opt out cookie." The point is that it puts the onus on them. The EFF explains this much better: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/what-does-track-do-not-track-mean https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/what-does-track-do-not... This isn't to make anyone untrackable. This is to make a far more consumer-friendly opt-out mechanism among those that are participating voluntarily. If it becomes legislation, which is what is being debated, then it is somewhat like a DMCA for users. If an advertising company tries to circumvent it, they are acting illegally. This isn't a silver bullet for privacy, but it is really powerful.

DNT is not about blocking ads. It's about signaling that you don't want to be profiled for advertising purposes. If you don't mind being profiled for targeted ads, then don't flip the switch.

eli 16y ago

I know, that's what I said. But if you really don't want to be tracked, can you trust marketers to respect this header? If not, what's the point?

bad_user 16y ago
The point is that some marketers are still honest and some also realize that it's smart to not piss off people, but there's no easy to use flagging mechanism that would signal your disapproval without user-experience suffering badly. Also, some marketers might be honest, but that data may end-up in the wrong hands eventually. So if you care about privacy, any period of time in which you aren't tracked is a net win for your privacy. Not to mention that this flag may end up being a useful argument in case of a lawsuit.
- eli 16y ago
  http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp http://www.networkadvertising.org/managing/opt_out.asp doesn't require any special browser support
- spoondan 16y ago
  The point is that some marketers are still honest So DNT is a mechanism for blocking the honest marketers that we trust to respect our communicated wishes, while still permitting the dishonest marketers to do what they will? As far as I can tell, DNT requires enforcement legislation to be effective. some also realize that it's smart to not piss off people How would someone tell that an advertiser is not respecting DNT and therefore be pissed off? Looking for suspicious cookies from third-party sites? The ads seem too personalized?
lawnchair_larry 16y ago
You can trust them to respect it about as much as you can trust them to respect the opposing proposition, which is their "opt out cookie." The point is that it puts the onus on them. The EFF explains this much better: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/what-does-track-do-not-track-mean https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/what-does-track-do-not... This isn't to make anyone untrackable. This is to make a far more consumer-friendly opt-out mechanism among those that are participating voluntarily. If it becomes legislation, which is what is being debated, then it is somewhat like a DMCA for users. If an advertising company tries to circumvent it, they are acting illegally. This isn't a silver bullet for privacy, but it is really powerful.