3 ms·
Most of us on Hacker News, from what I can tell, are generally against legislating the Internet. But, that's exactly what DNT requires to be effective, since it
by Xuzz 15y ago
Most of us on Hacker News, from what I can tell, are generally against legislating the Internet. But, that's exactly what DNT requires to be effective, since it provides no technical barrier against tracking: either websites are legislated into being required to honor it, or it has essentially no value to users. As much as privacy is important, I'm actually glad that Chrome doesn't support DNT. Hopefully that will give reason for a better technical solution to be developed.
- tomelders 15y agoI don't see that this would require legislating the internet. Instead, amendments to things such as data-protection, privacy or human rights legislation should be able to cover it.
- justinschuh 15y agoThis doesn't strike me as a legitimate difference (even just semantically). It doesn't matter if it's amended to existing legislation or passed as new law; both are the same from the perspective of "legislating the Internet."
- dredmorbius 15y agoSpeak for yourself. I'm against bad laws. I'm for good laws. If a realm of human activity exists in which unregulated behavior trends toward maximum social benefit, reasonable minds will contemplate whether or not appropriate regulation (and enforcement of same) might be beneficial. Say: putting teeth into DNT, allowing for civil penalties (a border condition in which law and private enforcement both come into play), and civil penalties for egregious flouting of the law.