3 ms·

I mean, Firefox sends Do Not Track when in private browsing. So clearly it's trying to do more than just hide local history. It obviously can't guarantee it, bu

I mean, Firefox sends Do Not Track when in private browsing. So clearly it's trying to do more than just hide local history. It obviously can't guarantee it, but it's trying. Chrome is not, and it seems pretty clear that it's not because that would hurt Google's bottom line. There's no conflict here between "Google shouldn't track you" and "Google should be split up".

vntok 6y ago
> I mean, Firefox sends Do Not Track when in private browsing. So clearly it's trying to do more than just hide local history. It obviously can't guarantee it, but it's trying. You got scammed by Mozilla if you think that. Please have a deep look at the various documentation on how the Internet works and realize that sending that header does absolutely nothing for users. It is, as it has always been, up to the receiving server to decide whether to even consider that data point or not. This means that Firefox is not "trying" to do anything there, and it's actually doing an incredibly hypocritical thing as a browser vendor, making non-technical users believe that Firefox sending that header is somehow proof that Mozilla cares.
- wtetzner 6y ago
  > Please have a deep look at the various documentation on how the Internet works Wow. I understand how the internet works, but thanks for the personal attack. > ... and realize that sending that header does absolutely nothing for users. It is, as it has always been, up to the receiving server to decide whether to even consider that data point or not. Of course, and Google controls the receiving server in this case. If they honored the Do-Not-Track header, and if Chrome sent it, users would be better off. Of course browsers can't control what all servers will do. But by sending it, servers that do honor it will. > This means that Firefox is not "trying" to do anything there, and it's actually doing an incredibly hypocritical thing as a browser vendor, making non-technical users believe that Firefox sending that header is somehow proof that Mozilla cares. You seem to be saying that because not all services honor the header, it should never be sent. I would say that sending it is better than not sending it, because some services do honor it. And the fact that Google doesn't honor it is telling itself. Firefox obviously does try, and DNT is not the only proof. They have put in a ton of work to make fingerprinting harder.
d1zzy 6y ago
Chrome also has an option for Do Not Track. Are you saying it should be enabled by default in Incognito? That may seem like it would help but not really because now you've given trackers a pretty unique signal to further track you (as very few people set that header).
- cpeterso 6y ago
  Chrome has an option to send DNT, but Google's sites do not honor DNT: > Most websites and web services, including Google's, don't change their behavior when they receive a Do Not Track request. Chrome doesn't provide details of which websites and web services respect Do Not Track requests and how websites interpret them. https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2790761 https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2790761

vntok 6y ago

> I mean, Firefox sends Do Not Track when in private browsing. So clearly it's trying to do more than just hide local history. It obviously can't guarantee it, but it's trying. You got scammed by Mozilla if you think that. Please have a deep look at the various documentation on how the Internet works and realize that sending that header does absolutely nothing for users. It is, as it has always been, up to the receiving server to decide whether to even consider that data point or not. This means that Firefox is not "trying" to do anything there, and it's actually doing an incredibly hypocritical thing as a browser vendor, making non-technical users believe that Firefox sending that header is somehow proof that Mozilla cares.

wtetzner 6y ago
> Please have a deep look at the various documentation on how the Internet works Wow. I understand how the internet works, but thanks for the personal attack. > ... and realize that sending that header does absolutely nothing for users. It is, as it has always been, up to the receiving server to decide whether to even consider that data point or not. Of course, and Google controls the receiving server in this case. If they honored the Do-Not-Track header, and if Chrome sent it, users would be better off. Of course browsers can't control what all servers will do. But by sending it, servers that do honor it will. > This means that Firefox is not "trying" to do anything there, and it's actually doing an incredibly hypocritical thing as a browser vendor, making non-technical users believe that Firefox sending that header is somehow proof that Mozilla cares. You seem to be saying that because not all services honor the header, it should never be sent. I would say that sending it is better than not sending it, because some services do honor it. And the fact that Google doesn't honor it is telling itself. Firefox obviously does try, and DNT is not the only proof. They have put in a ton of work to make fingerprinting harder.

d1zzy 6y ago

Chrome also has an option for Do Not Track. Are you saying it should be enabled by default in Incognito? That may seem like it would help but not really because now you've given trackers a pretty unique signal to further track you (as very few people set that header).

cpeterso 6y ago
Chrome has an option to send DNT, but Google's sites do not honor DNT: > Most websites and web services, including Google's, don't change their behavior when they receive a Do Not Track request. Chrome doesn't provide details of which websites and web services respect Do Not Track requests and how websites interpret them. https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2790761 https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2790761