3 ms·

it can not be the ultimate negation though because it does not provide for a way to allow specific sites and the meaning of what to not track is not defined any

by cowl 3y ago

it can not be the ultimate negation though because it does not provide for a way to allow specific sites and the meaning of what to not track is not defined anyway. (see https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/what-does-track-do-not-track-mean https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/what-does-track-do-not...) I would love for a codified way to specify this in the browser but that also makes way for the inevitable exclusions. for example taken to the extreme, compliance with the DNT means that you can not use any site that even requires a login.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
> it does not provide for a way to allow specific sites That's a browser limitation. They currently implement it as a global setting. They could also allow the user to configure a whitelist of websites. The lack of that feature doesn't invalidate it though. It's not a problem. > the meaning of what to not track is not defined anyway At a minimum, it means denying consent to everything you can deny consent to. > taken to the extreme All this complication and confusion just isn't necessary in my opinion. Tracking is the collection of any information the user did not explicitly provide for any purpose other than what the user wanted. If I log into a website, I'm explicitly providing my username and password. The site didn't fingerprint me and automatically log me in based on that unique identifier, I did it myself. If I give a store my address so it can ship an order to me, I'm the one providing that information and only for that exact purpose. I certainly don't expect the store to sell my address to some marketing company which then starts spamming my physical inbox with advertisement garbage. These corporations need to learn to do exactly what's asked of them and nothing else. We don't want them exploiting the information we trusted them with for unknown purposes. This is the spirit of the GDPR: inform users of the data you collect and what it's used for, and anything not absolutely essential to the transaction may be denied. It is obvious to me that a Do Not Track header represents that blanket denial of any non-essential data collection and processing.

by cowl 3y ago

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> it does not provide for a way to allow specific sites That's a browser limitation. They currently implement it as a global setting. They could also allow the user to configure a whitelist of websites. The lack of that feature doesn't invalidate it though. It's not a problem. > the meaning of what to not track is not defined anyway At a minimum, it means denying consent to everything you can deny consent to. > taken to the extreme All this complication and confusion just isn't necessary in my opinion. Tracking is the collection of any information the user did not explicitly provide for any purpose other than what the user wanted. If I log into a website, I'm explicitly providing my username and password. The site didn't fingerprint me and automatically log me in based on that unique identifier, I did it myself. If I give a store my address so it can ship an order to me, I'm the one providing that information and only for that exact purpose. I certainly don't expect the store to sell my address to some marketing company which then starts spamming my physical inbox with advertisement garbage. These corporations need to learn to do exactly what's asked of them and nothing else. We don't want them exploiting the information we trusted them with for unknown purposes. This is the spirit of the GDPR: inform users of the data you collect and what it's used for, and anything not absolutely essential to the transaction may be denied. It is obvious to me that a Do Not Track header represents that blanket denial of any non-essential data collection and processing.