4 ms·

> Removing this feature harms user agency It doesn't, because nobody respects it. It is actually harmful to have a feature that misrepresents its efficiency t

> Removing this feature harms user agency It doesn't, because nobody respects it. It is actually harmful to have a feature that misrepresents its efficiency to users, especially when it comes to privacy and security. Nobody should ever feel that they will not be tracked because they enabled do-not-track, because it's wrong. Removing it is the right thing to do because of this.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
shaky-carrousel 2y ago
That nobody respects is is a false statement. Some do. Also that header permits users to signal sites if they want or not to be tracked, avoiding cookie popups. Edit: I just saw that Firefox supports GPC, which seems a better alternative to DNT.
- bluGill 2y ago
  But others use it as a signal. You are easier to track by the dishonerable with it. Meanwhile the honerable were probably not tracking as much [no way to tell but a reasonable guess]
  - joveian 2y ago
    You might be easier to track with it, but it is not hard to end up with a unique signature anyway. I can already be uniquely identified, so sending "Do Not Track" only has potential upsides. I have seen websites that claim to honor it so it seems to be doing something and I wish they wouldn't remove it.
- mossTechnician 2y ago
  I looked into GPC, and I'm not sure if it's much better. From the implementation notes[0]: GPC is also not intended to limit a first party’s use of personal information within the first-party context (such as a publisher targeting ads to a user on its website based on that user’s previous activity on that same site). GPC also appears to use the same tracking signals as DNT, so it has the exact same potential for abuse, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm missing something, but unless there's legal power behind this, I'm not sure if it's better. [0]: https://w3c.github.io/gpc/ https://w3c.github.io/gpc/
drannex 2y ago
Counter: It does, because some organizations and webmasters did respect it. The other option, Mozilla should have done, is shame companies that did not respect it. A continually updated list, a notification when browsing a site that did not, etc, but the problem comes from this being a vendor issue and that it would not be 100% accurate. Shaming is the only way this would have worked out, but they didn't, but for the ones who did this out of being a decent organization, they now no longer have a standard to base it on.
- jessyco 2y ago
  Where is this information about respecting come from? What tools or metrics do we have out there to observe it was being respected or not? Is it your feeling or do you have anything to back up what you're saying? ~ genuinely curious about statics on the subject.
  - drannex 2y ago
    No idea, which is why I mentioned it's a vendor related issue. They could have stood up a regulatory-ish body, or group, that organizations could sign onto, and/or an accreditation organization that does audits to ensure they are following DNT. Could have also done the simplest thing, the most error-prone, but still something tangible, and said "If you support DNT, add it a DNT-HEADER tag, and if it comes out that an org as using it and didn't follow it, then we will name and shame you". Just like we did with forcing HTTPS, the red icon did the heavy lifting there. The decision to /not/ do so, seems to be a choice they willingly made, because all three of those options are potentially obvious security and methods of 'protecting the \'net' or 're-wilding the \'net' while also adding another revenue stream to ensure they have the financial bandwidth and personel to make This A Thing, as it should be.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

shaky-carrousel 2y ago

That nobody respects is is a false statement. Some do. Also that header permits users to signal sites if they want or not to be tracked, avoiding cookie popups. Edit: I just saw that Firefox supports GPC, which seems a better alternative to DNT.

bluGill 2y ago
But others use it as a signal. You are easier to track by the dishonerable with it. Meanwhile the honerable were probably not tracking as much [no way to tell but a reasonable guess]
- joveian 2y ago
  You might be easier to track with it, but it is not hard to end up with a unique signature anyway. I can already be uniquely identified, so sending "Do Not Track" only has potential upsides. I have seen websites that claim to honor it so it seems to be doing something and I wish they wouldn't remove it.
mossTechnician 2y ago
I looked into GPC, and I'm not sure if it's much better. From the implementation notes[0]: GPC is also not intended to limit a first party’s use of personal information within the first-party context (such as a publisher targeting ads to a user on its website based on that user’s previous activity on that same site). GPC also appears to use the same tracking signals as DNT, so it has the exact same potential for abuse, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm missing something, but unless there's legal power behind this, I'm not sure if it's better. [0]: https://w3c.github.io/gpc/ https://w3c.github.io/gpc/

drannex 2y ago

Counter: It does, because some organizations and webmasters did respect it. The other option, Mozilla should have done, is shame companies that did not respect it. A continually updated list, a notification when browsing a site that did not, etc, but the problem comes from this being a vendor issue and that it would not be 100% accurate. Shaming is the only way this would have worked out, but they didn't, but for the ones who did this out of being a decent organization, they now no longer have a standard to base it on.

jessyco 2y ago
Where is this information about respecting come from? What tools or metrics do we have out there to observe it was being respected or not? Is it your feeling or do you have anything to back up what you're saying? ~ genuinely curious about statics on the subject.
- drannex 2y ago
  No idea, which is why I mentioned it's a vendor related issue. They could have stood up a regulatory-ish body, or group, that organizations could sign onto, and/or an accreditation organization that does audits to ensure they are following DNT. Could have also done the simplest thing, the most error-prone, but still something tangible, and said "If you support DNT, add it a DNT-HEADER tag, and if it comes out that an org as using it and didn't follow it, then we will name and shame you". Just like we did with forcing HTTPS, the red icon did the heavy lifting there. The decision to /not/ do so, seems to be a choice they willingly made, because all three of those options are potentially obvious security and methods of 'protecting the \'net' or 're-wilding the \'net' while also adding another revenue stream to ensure they have the financial bandwidth and personel to make This A Thing, as it should be.