4 ms·
Why would Chrome not support a meaningless header sent by the client? You are asking Schneier to implement security by obscurity with emphasis on the obscurity
by revelation 14y ago
Why would Chrome not support a meaningless header sent by the client?
You are asking Schneier to implement security by obscurity with emphasis on the obscurity part. Hell, you are asking the same people that sent a "This is not a P3P policy" P3P policy.
Now I don't know if they think, as do I, that all of this is just meaningless extra traffic on the wire, or that they are evil and don't want to commit to privacy guarantees. No way to tell.
- hmottestad 14y agoAnyone sent in a RFC for using code 666 for "Server is evil and does not support Do Not Track headers".
- __ted__ 14y agoThe IETF does have a network-layer solution to that. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt