From what I understand, the do not track header is added to ever single browser request when the option is enabled. With virtually nobody actually obeying the d

From what I understand, the do not track header is added to ever single browser request when the option is enabled. With virtually nobody actually obeying the do not track header, all it is for the time being is a waste of bandwidth. Certainly not a lot, but it probably adds up. Yes, in theory a decentralized system for indicating privacy settings is a great idea, but the large scale offenders, the only people whose networks span a great enough breadth in order to collect useful information on people, happen to be a pretty small number. A quasi centralized system with opt out cookies has less of an overhead, less ambiguity and most importantly of all, already exists and works. Plus, tracking on the web is not a binary thing. Maybe for a simple blog or ad, it might be less ambiguous. But are you still allowed to be able to know how many visitors you have on a given day? If your on a web app, does do not track mean you can't save any documents because they constitute a digital trail of what you've done? A system to fight tracking needs to be nuanced. Something like that disconnect extension, where it's not simply on or off. If you think about it, google doesn't really have any real reason to hinder the adoption of DoNotTrack to preserve it's data mining business. A do not track header standard would hinder competitors equally, whereas the opt out cookies would single out google. If i were in that position, I would choose the option that hinders my competitors as well.