5 ms·

Do Not Track is a suggestion at best. In the best of all possible worlds where Google does exactly as you suggest in forcing it on and respecting it, every othe

by Kalium 3y ago

Do Not Track is a suggestion at best. In the best of all possible worlds where Google does exactly as you suggest in forcing it on and respecting it, every other server out there is perfectly capable of ignoring a polite suggestion. Your other idea is interesting. Google should lobby for regulations that would hurt their competitors far more than them. You wouldn't regard this as a big company engaging in regulatory capture?

lupusreal 3y ago
So you object that clients requesting not to be tracked isn't something servers are required to respect, but also object to the idea of servers facing legal penalties for not respecting it. It sounds like you've already decided that the tracking free-for-all status quo is the best we can do.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
oarsinsync 3y ago
> Do Not Track is a suggestion at best No, it’s an explicit instruction. It’s treated as a suggestion, at best. It’s not “It’d be real nice if you didn’t track”, it’s “Do not track.” There’s nothing ambiguous about it. The defence of Google is “well everyone else is doing it”, which isn’t a particularly strong defence, for Google, nor all the other shady businesses engaging in this practice.
- Kalium 3y ago
  What's the practical difference between an unenforceable and unobservable explicit instruction and a polite suggestion? My point is not that Google is good or bad or that all the other kids are doing it. My point is that DNT is at current fundamentally incapable of delivering what we're asking it to do.
  - oarsinsync 3y ago
    > unobservable explicit instruction It’s absolutely observable between the two parties that are engaged in the conversation, as it’s part of the HTTP header: DNT: 1
    - Kalium 3y ago
      The effects are, if any, are not observable. Let's go with a change of phrase, then. What's the practical difference between suggestion and a clear and explicit instruction that is unenforceable and where the user offering the instruction cannot tell if it is being executed faithfully?

by Kalium 3y ago

lupusreal 3y ago

So you object that clients requesting not to be tracked isn't something servers are required to respect, but also object to the idea of servers facing legal penalties for not respecting it. It sounds like you've already decided that the tracking free-for-all status quo is the best we can do.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

oarsinsync 3y ago

> Do Not Track is a suggestion at best No, it’s an explicit instruction. It’s treated as a suggestion, at best. It’s not “It’d be real nice if you didn’t track”, it’s “Do not track.” There’s nothing ambiguous about it. The defence of Google is “well everyone else is doing it”, which isn’t a particularly strong defence, for Google, nor all the other shady businesses engaging in this practice.

Kalium 3y ago
What's the practical difference between an unenforceable and unobservable explicit instruction and a polite suggestion? My point is not that Google is good or bad or that all the other kids are doing it. My point is that DNT is at current fundamentally incapable of delivering what we're asking it to do.
- oarsinsync 3y ago
  > unobservable explicit instruction It’s absolutely observable between the two parties that are engaged in the conversation, as it’s part of the HTTP header: DNT: 1
  - Kalium 3y ago
    The effects are, if any, are not observable. Let's go with a change of phrase, then. What's the practical difference between suggestion and a clear and explicit instruction that is unenforceable and where the user offering the instruction cannot tell if it is being executed faithfully?