4 ms·

The feature was being used to track people because of how low usage was

by ezfe 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
oytis 2y ago
An obvious solution would be to turn it on by default
- AlotOfReading 2y ago
  That's what IE 10 did. It led all the major advertisers to make public statements that they were going to ignore the header as a form of protest.
  - kjrfghslkdjfl 2y ago
    [dead]
  - registeredcorn 2y ago
    Sounds good to me. When (major advertiser/website detected): Prompt user, "Warning: (Advertiser/website) insists on tracking you, and have made public statements affirming this position. Your privacy is not enforceable on this website."
    - tehjoker 2y ago
      more like class action or regulatory step in. in theory market transactions are based on mutual consent. if consent isn't respected, then that's a problem.
      - registeredcorn 2y ago
        I actually ended up expanding on this a bit in a different comment thread, if you're interested. :) [1] It's a tough position to be in because the thing that really gets heads turning is regulation, licensing, and fines, but...when it comes to website design (assuming we're not talking about illicit material) I get queasy at the idea of (the/any) government saying, "You're not running your website the right way! Pay us money!" Perhaps the few exceptions being something like: PII storage, or payment processing. I dread the idea of anyone saying you have to, say, use a specific font type or whatever, you know? I don't want to put that burden on website owners, or complicate my own life. I'd rather inform the end user, point out the biggest offenders, and leave them be. "Detect, inform, and move on." Big scary message[2] then leave it to the user to decide what they want to do. "Oh, they're going to track me? Let me look up that VPN-thingy I keep hearing my nephew talk about." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=registeredcorn#42380874 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=registeredcorn#42380... [2] https://i.imgur.com/W885J9X.png https://i.imgur.com/W885J9X.png
        tehjoker 2y ago
        I don't think there's much support for specifying a specific font. I do think there is support for making companies do things that don't exploit users.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  This was used as an excuse by sites and advertisers to not support it actually. Because some browsers did that. That wouldn't fly in the EU though because tracking is supposed to be opt in so enabling by default is fine.
- dbbk 2y ago
  That's exactly what killed it. Everyone started ignoring it once Edge defaulted it to on.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    But without it defaulting to "on", it would have died anyway. That's why the entire effort was doomed from the very start. The only way that anything like this can possibly succeed is through legislation.

The feature was being used to track people because of how low usage was

by ezfe 2y ago

The feature was being used to track people because of how low usage was

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

oytis 2y ago

An obvious solution would be to turn it on by default

AlotOfReading 2y ago
That's what IE 10 did. It led all the major advertisers to make public statements that they were going to ignore the header as a form of protest.
- kjrfghslkdjfl 2y ago
  [dead]
- registeredcorn 2y ago
  Sounds good to me. When (major advertiser/website detected): Prompt user, "Warning: (Advertiser/website) insists on tracking you, and have made public statements affirming this position. Your privacy is not enforceable on this website."
  - tehjoker 2y ago
    more like class action or regulatory step in. in theory market transactions are based on mutual consent. if consent isn't respected, then that's a problem.
    - registeredcorn 2y ago
      I actually ended up expanding on this a bit in a different comment thread, if you're interested. :) [1] It's a tough position to be in because the thing that really gets heads turning is regulation, licensing, and fines, but...when it comes to website design (assuming we're not talking about illicit material) I get queasy at the idea of (the/any) government saying, "You're not running your website the right way! Pay us money!" Perhaps the few exceptions being something like: PII storage, or payment processing. I dread the idea of anyone saying you have to, say, use a specific font type or whatever, you know? I don't want to put that burden on website owners, or complicate my own life. I'd rather inform the end user, point out the biggest offenders, and leave them be. "Detect, inform, and move on." Big scary message[2] then leave it to the user to decide what they want to do. "Oh, they're going to track me? Let me look up that VPN-thingy I keep hearing my nephew talk about." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=registeredcorn#42380874 https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=registeredcorn#42380... [2] https://i.imgur.com/W885J9X.png https://i.imgur.com/W885J9X.png
      - tehjoker 2y ago
        I don't think there's much support for specifying a specific font. I do think there is support for making companies do things that don't exploit users.
wkat4242 2y ago
This was used as an excuse by sites and advertisers to not support it actually. Because some browsers did that. That wouldn't fly in the EU though because tracking is supposed to be opt in so enabling by default is fine.
dbbk 2y ago
That's exactly what killed it. Everyone started ignoring it once Edge defaulted it to on.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  But without it defaulting to "on", it would have died anyway. That's why the entire effort was doomed from the very start. The only way that anything like this can possibly succeed is through legislation.