12 ms·
I understand that many people here have a bad taste of Mozilla's recent actions in many aspects. But the reality here is that this is at worst removing somethin
by elashri 2y ago
I understand that many people here have a bad taste of Mozilla's recent actions in many aspects. But the reality here is that this is at worst removing something that almost nobody respected. It was based on honor system and even in Switzerland they do have random inspections for honor system. Browsers never had any enforcement of this feature. And ironically it was used as additional data point of tracking privacy aware people who went out of the way to enable it.
- jeroenhd 2y agoMedium supported it for ages. Tools like Matomo came with support for it by default. Firefox has implemented the replacement, Global Privacy Control. It has the exact same problems and isn't respected either, except even fewer websites have implementations that respect GPC. It's not a real solution to the normalised cyberstalking websites practice today, but it's also not entirely useless.
- shortsunblack 2y agoGPC does not meet GDPR's requirements and cannot be used for gaining consent under GDPR. There already has been a browser signal in design that meets GDPR requirements for consent, but it was ignored. The industry instead rallied behind GPC. See: https://www.dataprotectioncontrol.org/ https://www.dataprotectioncontrol.org/
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ddtaylor 2y agoRemove GPC too.
- Sephr 2y agoGPC is also a narrower signal implying a smaller subset of privacy choices.
- jeroenhd 2y agoThere is only one choice being expressed by either protocol. One against data collection, the other against the sale of collected data. DNT has legal standing in the EU, GPC has theoretical legal standing in the USA, where laws are more geared towards protecting data brokers. Removing a protocol because it doesn't work in the USA despite it being a legal opt-out in the EU is foolish; just send both headers, let local jurisdiction pick the which one is legally binding and which one can be ignored. GPC has been standardised to never make it extendable beyond "Sec-GPC: 1" so there is no way for it to imply a set of choices in the future, without breaking backwards compatibility. The choices are limited by design.
- Vinnl 2y agoDoesn't GPC have at least the force of Californian law behind it?
- jeroenhd 2y agoDoes it? All I've found is that it theoretically complies with California's decisions. I have yet to see that assumption make it through court. Meanwhile, DNT has the force of the GDPR behind it (https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=LG_Berlin_-_16_O_420/19 https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=LG_Berlin_-_16_O_420/19).
- Vinnl 2y agoHuh. So does that mean that LinkedIn respects DNT in the EU nowadays?
- DyslexicAtheist 2y agothe conversation / system is rigged. how it should have been done in a fair way: 1. assume the user by default does not want to be tracked and make do-not-track opt-out. 2. have it running for a few years and gradually increase the heat on the discussion that nobody respects it. If it would've been done this way it would've been newsworthy and maybe would've been considered as something to enforce via regulation (at least in EU). But as it stands do-not-track never had a chance to succeed - I believe that was by intention.
- orf 2y agoOh no, gradually increasing heat in online privacy-focused tech discussions! An adtech companies worst nightmare! How will they survive :(
- eastbound 2y agoI’ll laugh with you, but once Google is gone, the first replacement will be ChatGPT and it already is $20pm (and apparently, ChatGPT is so good at organizing the world’s information that I’m paying for it)(Yes it was Google’s mission)(Yes they failed). 2030 will be fun.
- zoezoezoezoe 2y agoHow can we know you didnt want to be stabbed if we dont stab you first?
- phoronixrly 2y agoAh, an RFC 35140 reference
- 1oooqooq 2y agoyou joke, but firefox features did work. proof is that musk first and only feature added to shitter post purchase fiasco was to detect firefox anti tracking feature and block the user! the fact the most shrewd person in the world acted on it is perfect proof it worked againt his goals (which now we know was to influence elections)
- troyvit 2y agoI have to second this. It's a voluntary rule used by a browser with the market share that looks more like a rounding error. If this is all somebody was using to depend on their online privacy then they need a class. In that light removing it might push a few people to apply more protections to their browser and be an overall (if extremely minor) win for privacy.
- zamadatix 2y agoEven more than being ignored it added yet another way to narrow down a fingerprint.