4 ms·

This law was half-baked from the start. I'd sooner see legislation requiring adherence to the Do Not Track standard. http://donottrack.us/ http://donottrack.us/

vog 14y ago
"Do Not Track" looks totally insane to me. First, why is it desinged to be an opt-out system?! Second, why does its correct implementation depend on the mercy of the respective website? Well, the latter might be working if enforced by every legislation in the world. But the former ensures it will never solve the problem: "Oh, this user explicitly asked us not to track her, so it might be especially interesting to track that one." In other words: More work for white hats, less work for black hats. I'd rather see this issue solved on client side. For instance, by improving the "incognito" mode of Chromium, combined with a law that protects operators of Tor end nodes.
- craig552uk 14y ago
  I too would like to see the issue addressed on the client. A user should be able to configure their tracking settings in the browser, which should be respected by sites. Legislation would require sites to adhere to these settings. DNT is one such standard to achieve this. Also, global legislation is not necessary to effect change. Laws affecting one region can effect changes in all. For example; EU based companies are required to comply with EU law. They in-turn require their product suppliers to comply, wherever they are based, or risk losing their business. If nothing else, the 'cookie law' has demonstrated this. Google, Yahoo & Disqus (among others) have changed their products in response to the law.
  - vog 14y ago
    > I too would like to see the issue addressed on the client. A user should be able to configure their tracking settings in the browser, which should be respected by sites. No, that would be addressing the problem at the server side, which is not quite what I had in mind. Solving this on the client side means: The browser should make it as hard as possible for websites to track the user. Unless, of course, the user explicitly opts in to be recognized and tracked by this site (e.g. by registering and logging in).
    - craig552uk 14y ago
      The technologies used to track users across sites are the same as those used for 'regular' browsing. Are you suggesting crippling web browsers as a solution?
- TylerE 14y ago
  Not to mention it's completely impossible. How can you remember that someone is opt-out without...tracking them.
rickmb 14y ago
Seriously. You're suggesting the EU just abandon its citizens right to privacy and making it an "opt-out" thing? What's next? donotrob.us to opt-out of burglaries? Tracking without permission is an illegal violation of privacy. You do not "opt-out" of crime with the criminals.
- craig552uk 14y ago
  I'm suggesting that the current law, while well intentioned, offers us in the industry little explanation of how we are supposed to comply. And thanks to the indifference of the ICO, changes nothing. DNT puts forward a solution, that with the backing of legislators and browser vendors, has a chance of educating and empowering web user about online privacy.

vog 14y ago

"Do Not Track" looks totally insane to me. First, why is it desinged to be an opt-out system?! Second, why does its correct implementation depend on the mercy of the respective website? Well, the latter might be working if enforced by every legislation in the world. But the former ensures it will never solve the problem: "Oh, this user explicitly asked us not to track her, so it might be especially interesting to track that one." In other words: More work for white hats, less work for black hats. I'd rather see this issue solved on client side. For instance, by improving the "incognito" mode of Chromium, combined with a law that protects operators of Tor end nodes.

craig552uk 14y ago
I too would like to see the issue addressed on the client. A user should be able to configure their tracking settings in the browser, which should be respected by sites. Legislation would require sites to adhere to these settings. DNT is one such standard to achieve this. Also, global legislation is not necessary to effect change. Laws affecting one region can effect changes in all. For example; EU based companies are required to comply with EU law. They in-turn require their product suppliers to comply, wherever they are based, or risk losing their business. If nothing else, the 'cookie law' has demonstrated this. Google, Yahoo & Disqus (among others) have changed their products in response to the law.
- vog 14y ago
  > I too would like to see the issue addressed on the client. A user should be able to configure their tracking settings in the browser, which should be respected by sites. No, that would be addressing the problem at the server side, which is not quite what I had in mind. Solving this on the client side means: The browser should make it as hard as possible for websites to track the user. Unless, of course, the user explicitly opts in to be recognized and tracked by this site (e.g. by registering and logging in).
  - craig552uk 14y ago
    The technologies used to track users across sites are the same as those used for 'regular' browsing. Are you suggesting crippling web browsers as a solution?
TylerE 14y ago
Not to mention it's completely impossible. How can you remember that someone is opt-out without...tracking them.

rickmb 14y ago

Seriously. You're suggesting the EU just abandon its citizens right to privacy and making it an "opt-out" thing? What's next? donotrob.us to opt-out of burglaries? Tracking without permission is an illegal violation of privacy. You do not "opt-out" of crime with the criminals.

craig552uk 14y ago
I'm suggesting that the current law, while well intentioned, offers us in the industry little explanation of how we are supposed to comply. And thanks to the indifference of the ICO, changes nothing. DNT puts forward a solution, that with the backing of legislators and browser vendors, has a chance of educating and empowering web user about online privacy.