3 ms·

DNT was an "evil bit" non-solution that was stupid all the way from initial concept to execution to predictable industry response. We are better off without it.

TillE 4y ago
Millions of websites are currently showing stupid cookie popups because they're mandated by law to obtain the user's consent. Why shouldn't that consent or lack thereof be expressed once in the browser UI instead? The only issue with DNT is that it wasn't mandated.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Exactly. My agent speaks for me. That it's inconvenient for the tracking industry and thus was ignored is an enforcement issue, not a technical one. If my browser tells you not to track me, it should be illegal to ask me again.
  - runiq 4y ago
    > Exactly. My agent speaks for me. That's it. We don't call it a user agent for nothing. Or rather, we shouldn't, but we are.
- thwarted 4y ago
  There was P3P, started over two decades ago, which never gained traction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://www.w3.org/P3P/ https://www.w3.org/P3P/ From Wikipedia: As an example, a user may store in the browser preferences that information about their browsing habits should not be collected. If the policy of a Website states that a cookie is used for this purpose, the browser automatically rejects the cookie.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
No. The problem is the legal framework for user tracking informed consent didn't exist back then. Sites wouldn't be able to simply ignore DNT if doing so created legal liability for them. Corporations essentially had a presumed right to track users. Now they don't, they need to get informed consent first. A DNT header makes the user's non-consent explicit: not only is the user presumed not to have consented to tracking, the presence of this header signals active and explicit denial of consent from the user. It's not like the evil bit at all. We're dealing with corporations that operate openly on the market. It's perfectly possible to say "it's illegal to ignore this bit" if it comes with the threat of heavy fines attached.

TillE 4y ago

Millions of websites are currently showing stupid cookie popups because they're mandated by law to obtain the user's consent. Why shouldn't that consent or lack thereof be expressed once in the browser UI instead? The only issue with DNT is that it wasn't mandated.

ethbr0 4y ago
Exactly. My agent speaks for me. That it's inconvenient for the tracking industry and thus was ignored is an enforcement issue, not a technical one. If my browser tells you not to track me, it should be illegal to ask me again.
- runiq 4y ago
  > Exactly. My agent speaks for me. That's it. We don't call it a user agent for nothing. Or rather, we shouldn't, but we are.
thwarted 4y ago
There was P3P, started over two decades ago, which never gained traction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://www.w3.org/P3P/ https://www.w3.org/P3P/ From Wikipedia: As an example, a user may store in the browser preferences that information about their browsing habits should not be collected. If the policy of a Website states that a cookie is used for this purpose, the browser automatically rejects the cookie.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

No. The problem is the legal framework for user tracking informed consent didn't exist back then. Sites wouldn't be able to simply ignore DNT if doing so created legal liability for them. Corporations essentially had a presumed right to track users. Now they don't, they need to get informed consent first. A DNT header makes the user's non-consent explicit: not only is the user presumed not to have consented to tracking, the presence of this header signals active and explicit denial of consent from the user. It's not like the evil bit at all. We're dealing with corporations that operate openly on the market. It's perfectly possible to say "it's illegal to ignore this bit" if it comes with the threat of heavy fines attached.