3 ms·

>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, o

>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.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    I didn't say a law needs to be created. however if there is no enforcement of this header it is useless. Law is the only way I can come up with to enforce this (courts just implies there is some existing law - would this header field be considered a contract for example?), but if you can come up with something else I'm open to that. However so far is has not been enforced to do what it claims to do and nobody is making progress on changing that.
recursive 2y ago
> poorly enforced The problem is that there is no, and can be no enforcement mechanism. Unless you live behind a great firewall of [country] or are only accessing the web through your employer's corporate network. Operating a motor vehicle on public roads requires a license and vehicle registration in most jurisdictions. These rules are not always observed, but there are enforcement mechanisms in place. There is no website licensing body, and kind of can't be without making everything worse.
- registeredcorn 2y ago
  You raise some good points! I was going back and fourth about the speed limit analogy since cops do pull people over for speeding. I was trying to think of some thing that is supposed to be followed, but is commonly ignored without consequence. Perhaps the 6' social distancing recommendations during lockdown would work better? There was an expectation that people follow it, but actually adhering to it differed wildly depending on where you were. Returning to the point, I suppose the question might be what enforcement would even look like, as you mentioned. Some governmental organization ala DMV? Seems excessive. A professional organization of some sort, similar to IEEE? Probably not. Perhaps just a "watch dog" organization like a sister organization to the EFF, specifically focused on reporting which sites honor, and dishonor DNT. Personally, I would prefer the last, with some kind of check that could help indicate in the browser visually to the user whether the site honors DNT. Similar to (or tied into) the lock symbol for HTTPS would be nice. Outside of that, it seems like such a niche and fringe thing that, unless enabled by default, would fall on deaf ears. I don't see myself endorsing some kind of financial penalty, simply because I think it would hurt small websites. And also because website stuff is confusing and stressful enough already. I personally think a kind of visual "name and shame" to the end user, along side improved support to support DNT would be optimal. I.e. Hot dog on a stick in one hand, dog poop on a stick in the other hand. Reading through the Wikipedia article, it sounds this is largely what was already done with DNT, and failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track#History ...And subsequently, GPC began to act in a way that I'm not thrilled about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track#Global_Privacy_Control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track#Global_Privacy_Co... It comes off reeking of a pretext to confine the nature of how websites, and the internet at large, are allowed to operate.

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.
- bluGill 2y ago
  I didn't say a law needs to be created. however if there is no enforcement of this header it is useless. Law is the only way I can come up with to enforce this (courts just implies there is some existing law - would this header field be considered a contract for example?), but if you can come up with something else I'm open to that. However so far is has not been enforced to do what it claims to do and nobody is making progress on changing that.

recursive 2y ago

> poorly enforced The problem is that there is no, and can be no enforcement mechanism. Unless you live behind a great firewall of [country] or are only accessing the web through your employer's corporate network. Operating a motor vehicle on public roads requires a license and vehicle registration in most jurisdictions. These rules are not always observed, but there are enforcement mechanisms in place. There is no website licensing body, and kind of can't be without making everything worse.

registeredcorn 2y ago
You raise some good points! I was going back and fourth about the speed limit analogy since cops do pull people over for speeding. I was trying to think of some thing that is supposed to be followed, but is commonly ignored without consequence. Perhaps the 6' social distancing recommendations during lockdown would work better? There was an expectation that people follow it, but actually adhering to it differed wildly depending on where you were. Returning to the point, I suppose the question might be what enforcement would even look like, as you mentioned. Some governmental organization ala DMV? Seems excessive. A professional organization of some sort, similar to IEEE? Probably not. Perhaps just a "watch dog" organization like a sister organization to the EFF, specifically focused on reporting which sites honor, and dishonor DNT. Personally, I would prefer the last, with some kind of check that could help indicate in the browser visually to the user whether the site honors DNT. Similar to (or tied into) the lock symbol for HTTPS would be nice. Outside of that, it seems like such a niche and fringe thing that, unless enabled by default, would fall on deaf ears. I don't see myself endorsing some kind of financial penalty, simply because I think it would hurt small websites. And also because website stuff is confusing and stressful enough already. I personally think a kind of visual "name and shame" to the end user, along side improved support to support DNT would be optimal. I.e. Hot dog on a stick in one hand, dog poop on a stick in the other hand. Reading through the Wikipedia article, it sounds this is largely what was already done with DNT, and failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track#History ...And subsequently, GPC began to act in a way that I'm not thrilled about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track#Global_Privacy_Control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track#Global_Privacy_Co... It comes off reeking of a pretext to confine the nature of how websites, and the internet at large, are allowed to operate.