4 ms·

> However, as we approach 2025, with growing concerns about online privacy and data protection, Mozilla believes that DNT is no longer an effective privacy meas

> However, as we approach 2025, with growing concerns about online privacy and data protection, Mozilla believes that DNT is no longer an effective privacy measure. Many websites ignore the DNT signal. Therefore, Mozilla has removed the DNT signal from Firefox version 135. This is spurious reasoning. "Many" is neither a percentage, or a basis for justification. Many people ignore speed limits - so what? >The company recommends using the Global Privacy Control setting as an alternative to prevent websites from tracking user data. >If you wish to ask websites to respect your privacy, [...] [t]his option is built on top of the Global Privacy Control (GPC). GPC is respected by increasing numbers of sites and enforced with legislation in some regions. Increasing numbers? But then that means that "'Many' websites ignore it", right? This reeks of early movements towards monetization of their shrinking userbase. It's genuinely disappointing. I used to like Firefox, and continue to use Thunderbird today. Good luck to the stragglers who decide to stick it out.

n144q 2y ago
Websites don't just "ignore" DNT, they actively use DNT to improve tracking. From a product perspective, this is an additional option in their settings page that is confusing and marginally useless. I work on creating user facing products as my job, and I 100% support this decision. I'll be honest: nobody is going to stop Firefox because of this, because it does not affect their life in any way or manner.
- registeredcorn 2y ago
  Per oytis: "An obvious solution would be to turn it on by default" I do agree with your point on people continuing to use Firefox in spite of this. Most people are not invested in the details, or don't care about security/privacy, or can't be bothered to figure out which other browser option is best for their use case. My annoyance is more so on their behalf - that average people will probably be unaware of what security feature is being taken away from them. Do they care? Probably not. Will it change much for them? No. It irks me, however, that they no longer even have the option.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > It irks me, however, that they no longer even have the option. I think the major point is that they don't have the option right now. The percentage of websites that honor DNT is a rounding error, so the existence of it -- at best -- gives the illusion of privacy protection. In my opinion, the illusion of security is worse than not having security but knowing it.
    - registeredcorn 2y ago
      >The percentage of websites that honor DNT is a rounding error Referring to my previous comment: "This is spurious reasoning. 'Many' is neither a percentage, or a basis for justification. Many people ignore speed limits - so what?" Privacy configurations are not a popularity vote. Instead, they are an implementation of software design. E.g. "No one" bothers with PGP, therefore it should be supported. A more charitable description of DNT, instead of saying it is "not an option" would be that it is a privacy option that is poorly enforced - exceedingly so! I will of course agree wholeheartedly that the effectiveness of that privacy option, which is independent of its implementation and design, is ineffective. I also agree that it has a theoretical potential to give a user "false optimism", because of its failure of enforcement, but I don't see that second point as being inherently harmful. I suppose it comes down to whether you want to take a pill that has "reduced effectiveness" at fighting pancreatic cancer, or if you prefer the several seconds saved in not needing to swallow. In my mind, even if the pill sucks and has a failure rate of 99.7/100, it seems bizarre to snatch it away from someone who would like to take it anyway.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        Unless you have a plan to make it useful it needs to go. Right now it is false advertising. If you can find someone and successfuly sue them for not honoring it great - but you still need to do a lot more (sue many others in many countries).
        registeredcorn 2y ago
        What need is that? Bad people with malicious intentions exist: therefore, remove something that functions properly. DNT is not shilled by some privately-owned company that claims it will somehow, "Make users invisible online for the low, low price of (money)!" Instead, it is simply an HTTP header that some (many) websites ignore, or outright maliciously exploit for personal gain. Computer Operating systems are not "false advertising" simply because certain programmers ignore standard practices outlined by the maintainers. It is not the fault of an Operating System if programmers refuse to adhere to the documentation on how something should be implemented. It's certainly not a sensible justification for Operating Systems "needing to go", just because people write bad or malicious software to abuse an OS's weaknesses. To be clear, I am hardly saying DNT is a good option, precisely because so many websites have ignored or abused it in the past. I am simply saying DNT should be an option, and that it should be one that is enabled by default. >If you can find someone and successfuly sue them for not honoring it great - but you still need to do a lot more (sue many others in many countries). If DNT is removed as being an option, what need would there be for such a law to be created in the first place? You said you support the idea of a law being made - shouldn't you be for DNT remaining, then? I hope that doesn't mischaracterize your point but it's a little confusing, it sounds like you're saying you: support the premise of DNT, want a law to enforce DNT...and you don't want DNT as a configuration option in Firefox.
- kuschku 2y ago
  > I'll be honest: nobody is going to stop Firefox because of this, because it does not affect their life in any way or manner. I will stop using Firefox because of this. Many German sites actually follow DNT, because German courts only recently ruled DNT to be legally binding. Mozilla removing a feature that has even gotten legal support has to be an absolute clown take.
ddtaylor 2y ago
Mozilla makes it increasingly difficult to support Firefox. I'm beginning to realize the only solution there is an entirely different governing body than Mozilla like most of the Firefox derivatives are now. Sigh.
- recursive 2y ago
  Maybe so, but this particular move seems unambiguously good. DNT is a net negative and is misleading. Its only practical effect is to add another bit of entropy to shady fingerprinting mechanisms.

n144q 2y ago

Websites don't just "ignore" DNT, they actively use DNT to improve tracking. From a product perspective, this is an additional option in their settings page that is confusing and marginally useless. I work on creating user facing products as my job, and I 100% support this decision. I'll be honest: nobody is going to stop Firefox because of this, because it does not affect their life in any way or manner.

registeredcorn 2y ago
Per oytis: "An obvious solution would be to turn it on by default" I do agree with your point on people continuing to use Firefox in spite of this. Most people are not invested in the details, or don't care about security/privacy, or can't be bothered to figure out which other browser option is best for their use case. My annoyance is more so on their behalf - that average people will probably be unaware of what security feature is being taken away from them. Do they care? Probably not. Will it change much for them? No. It irks me, however, that they no longer even have the option.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > It irks me, however, that they no longer even have the option. I think the major point is that they don't have the option right now. The percentage of websites that honor DNT is a rounding error, so the existence of it -- at best -- gives the illusion of privacy protection. In my opinion, the illusion of security is worse than not having security but knowing it.
  - registeredcorn 2y ago
    >The percentage of websites that honor DNT is a rounding error Referring to my previous comment: "This is spurious reasoning. 'Many' is neither a percentage, or a basis for justification. Many people ignore speed limits - so what?" Privacy configurations are not a popularity vote. Instead, they are an implementation of software design. E.g. "No one" bothers with PGP, therefore it should be supported. A more charitable description of DNT, instead of saying it is "not an option" would be that it is a privacy option that is poorly enforced - exceedingly so! I will of course agree wholeheartedly that the effectiveness of that privacy option, which is independent of its implementation and design, is ineffective. I also agree that it has a theoretical potential to give a user "false optimism", because of its failure of enforcement, but I don't see that second point as being inherently harmful. I suppose it comes down to whether you want to take a pill that has "reduced effectiveness" at fighting pancreatic cancer, or if you prefer the several seconds saved in not needing to swallow. In my mind, even if the pill sucks and has a failure rate of 99.7/100, it seems bizarre to snatch it away from someone who would like to take it anyway.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Unless you have a plan to make it useful it needs to go. Right now it is false advertising. If you can find someone and successfuly sue them for not honoring it great - but you still need to do a lot more (sue many others in many countries).
      - registeredcorn 2y ago
        What need is that? Bad people with malicious intentions exist: therefore, remove something that functions properly. DNT is not shilled by some privately-owned company that claims it will somehow, "Make users invisible online for the low, low price of (money)!" Instead, it is simply an HTTP header that some (many) websites ignore, or outright maliciously exploit for personal gain. Computer Operating systems are not "false advertising" simply because certain programmers ignore standard practices outlined by the maintainers. It is not the fault of an Operating System if programmers refuse to adhere to the documentation on how something should be implemented. It's certainly not a sensible justification for Operating Systems "needing to go", just because people write bad or malicious software to abuse an OS's weaknesses. To be clear, I am hardly saying DNT is a good option, precisely because so many websites have ignored or abused it in the past. I am simply saying DNT should be an option, and that it should be one that is enabled by default. >If you can find someone and successfuly sue them for not honoring it great - but you still need to do a lot more (sue many others in many countries). If DNT is removed as being an option, what need would there be for such a law to be created in the first place? You said you support the idea of a law being made - shouldn't you be for DNT remaining, then? I hope that doesn't mischaracterize your point but it's a little confusing, it sounds like you're saying you: support the premise of DNT, want a law to enforce DNT...and you don't want DNT as a configuration option in Firefox.
kuschku 2y ago
> I'll be honest: nobody is going to stop Firefox because of this, because it does not affect their life in any way or manner. I will stop using Firefox because of this. Many German sites actually follow DNT, because German courts only recently ruled DNT to be legally binding. Mozilla removing a feature that has even gotten legal support has to be an absolute clown take.

ddtaylor 2y ago

Mozilla makes it increasingly difficult to support Firefox. I'm beginning to realize the only solution there is an entirely different governing body than Mozilla like most of the Firefox derivatives are now. Sigh.

recursive 2y ago
Maybe so, but this particular move seems unambiguously good. DNT is a net negative and is misleading. Its only practical effect is to add another bit of entropy to shady fingerprinting mechanisms.