3 ms·
A lot of finger pointing but it’s very light on the specifics. Newsome apparently veto’s it but it doesn’t really go into why. There’s got to be a lot more goin
by azinman2 2y ago
A lot of finger pointing but it’s very light on the specifics. Newsome apparently veto’s it but it doesn’t really go into why. There’s got to be a lot more going on here.
Anyone know?
- kemayo 2y agoNewsom said he vetoed it because he didn't support legislating an implementation detail -- that all OS/browser makers were required to include support for sending a Do Not Track signal. It sounds like he'd have signed a bill that just said companies were required to respect a Do Not Track signal if one was sent. > But Newsom said he is opposed to the new bill's mandate on operating systems. "I am concerned, however, about placing a mandate on operating system (OS) developers at this time," the governor wrote. "No major mobile OS incorporates an option for an opt-out signal. By contrast, most Internet browsers either include such an option or, if users choose, they can download a plug-in with the same functionality. To ensure the ongoing usability of mobile devices, it's best if design questions are first addressed by developers, rather than by regulators. For this reason, I cannot sign this bill." See: https://archive.is/tNlCR https://archive.is/tNlCR
- azinman2 2y agoSo this is DNT. As he said, browsers already support this. This article made it sound like they don’t? This is why I’m so confused.