3 ms·

I'm wondering if enforcing this on the browser level wouldn't make more sense. I mean, if a site use cookies or wants to track you in any other ways it would ha

by snicky 6y ago

I'm wondering if enforcing this on the browser level wouldn't make more sense. I mean, if a site use cookies or wants to track you in any other ways it would have to ask for your permission the same way you are asked before accessing your camera or microphone. You could opt-in or opt-out which should be the default if you don't make any choice. Then the sites would have to clearly stop you from accessing their content if you didn't opt-in, the same way you are stopped with paywalls. I think this would be much more transparent if we really want to teach people that they can pay for the content either with their money or their data. Of course another choice would be to just avoid these sites whatsoever.

ratww 6y ago
This is how it should be. Unfortunately even if this becomes a standard I can foresee Google dragging their feet on this and never implementing, and providers refusing to comply on grounds of "the user didn't reeeeeally mean to block tracking".
tomjakubowski 6y ago
You might be interested in the proposed Do Not Track header, which has so far failed to get any traction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  It's worth noting that Microsoft enabled Do Not Track in Internet Explorer by default just after it started to gain traction, which caused a small backlash against its use [0], notably Apache started to ignore all DNT headers from Internet Explorer. I have to wonder whether it was an intentional effort by Microsoft to discredit DNT and to stop people from respecting it... On one hand, the same outcome (almost ignored everywhere) is likely to occur regardless of whether Microsoft made its move, on the other hand, it may have gave it a greater push. [0] I have my cynical Fundamental Law of Privacy - it must not be enabled by default, so that the industry will continue profiting from it, while giving the user the illusion of choice. But at least those who enabled it enjoyed privacy, although only to a very limited extent.
account42 6y ago
Cookies are just a mechanism - tracking information about you without cookies (e.g. by associating it with your IP address and/or other identifying bits) needs just as much consent. A purely technical solution cannot work. Browsers could still provide a consent API but without strict enforcement it would be pointless - and with proper enforcement you don't need it.

by snicky 6y ago

ratww 6y ago

This is how it should be. Unfortunately even if this becomes a standard I can foresee Google dragging their feet on this and never implementing, and providers refusing to comply on grounds of "the user didn't reeeeeally mean to block tracking".

tomjakubowski 6y ago

You might be interested in the proposed Do Not Track header, which has so far failed to get any traction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

segfaultbuserr 6y ago
It's worth noting that Microsoft enabled Do Not Track in Internet Explorer by default just after it started to gain traction, which caused a small backlash against its use [0], notably Apache started to ignore all DNT headers from Internet Explorer. I have to wonder whether it was an intentional effort by Microsoft to discredit DNT and to stop people from respecting it... On one hand, the same outcome (almost ignored everywhere) is likely to occur regardless of whether Microsoft made its move, on the other hand, it may have gave it a greater push. [0] I have my cynical Fundamental Law of Privacy - it must not be enabled by default, so that the industry will continue profiting from it, while giving the user the illusion of choice. But at least those who enabled it enjoyed privacy, although only to a very limited extent.

account42 6y ago

Cookies are just a mechanism - tracking information about you without cookies (e.g. by associating it with your IP address and/or other identifying bits) needs just as much consent. A purely technical solution cannot work. Browsers could still provide a consent API but without strict enforcement it would be pointless - and with proper enforcement you don't need it.