2 ms·

Yes and no. "Do Not Track" setting does not do anything but sending a header to all websites you visit. Plus, it was blamed to have an unfavorable default. Th

Yes and no. "Do Not Track" setting does not do anything but sending a header to all websites you visit. Plus, it was blamed to have an unfavorable default. The whole popup mess those days is essentially about those facts - there are no easy per-site controls with no default state (with a possible default if user consciously and explicitly configures their system as "accept all everywhere" or "reject all everywhere" - but this can't be out-of-the-box). Cookie prompts are just like that: per-site and without a default (you have to actively make a decision every time - accept or reject). I'm arguing that it would've been better if all those consent prompts would've been unified and a part of browser UI (rather than website UI). Because of two reasons: 1) the UI and UX would be uniform, consistent, and not prone to design whims and dark patterns; and 2) because this way browsers would be able to guarantee that the choice is partially respected by actually not accepting cookies. DNT header would be still needed to tell website to disable server-side tracking (and one has to believe that website respects it - turning this into a legal matter), but the whole design is different. (Just not like that annoying geolocation or camera popup prompts lol. A bar on top of the webpage would've been a sane option, I guess.)

PeterisP 5y ago
Since the law requires it to be opt-in, having Do Not Track be the automated default without any prompts is not problematic but the whole point of the thing.
imiric 5y ago
I don't get what you're arguing for. The default state should be DNT. Actually, using cookies for tracking, or any kind of fingerprinting for that matter, should be opt-in. The only reason it was opt-out is because adtech runs the web, and EU lawmakers are technically illiterate and influenced by the same tech giants they're supposed to regulate. So there are two things here: making a browser setting opt-in, and making it actually enforceable. The DNT header was a step in the right direction that got swallowed by corporate influence.

PeterisP 5y ago

Since the law requires it to be opt-in, having Do Not Track be the automated default without any prompts is not problematic but the whole point of the thing.

imiric 5y ago

I don't get what you're arguing for. The default state should be DNT. Actually, using cookies for tracking, or any kind of fingerprinting for that matter, should be opt-in. The only reason it was opt-out is because adtech runs the web, and EU lawmakers are technically illiterate and influenced by the same tech giants they're supposed to regulate. So there are two things here: making a browser setting opt-in, and making it actually enforceable. The DNT header was a step in the right direction that got swallowed by corporate influence.