8 ms·

Another pointless act which is simply for show. They want to be able market Internet Explorer by saying "The Browser That Does Not Track You". W3C clearly state

by esolyt 14y ago

Another pointless act which is simply for show. They want to be able market Internet Explorer by saying "The Browser That Does Not Track You". W3C clearly stated that this is considered an abuse of the DNT flag. As a result, thanks to Microsoft, the flag will start to be ignored completely.

aggronn 14y ago
Microsoft just can't win, can they?
- Flimm 14y ago
  Sure they can. They should do what the W3C wants them to do. But for some reason, in this case, they don't. It makes me want to cry in frustration. DNT was on very shaky grounds to begin with, this just makes things worse.
- qntm 14y ago
  This is the W3C's problem. "An ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user’s explicit consent"? How, exactly, are they intending to detect the user's explicit consent via the medium of HTTP headers? Why introduce a header which almost everybody in the world would probably want to use by default in every one of their HTTP requests and then say that you can't do that? What if I chose my browser specifically because it has DNT by default? Why introduce a header which doesn't do anything unless you really really want it to? The Explicit Consent Requirement is nonsensical. But then the DNT header itself is also nonsensical, because there's no legislation or tangible benefit to make request handlers respect it. Nobody should be tracked unless they've explicitly asked for it.
  - huggyface 14y ago
    Why introduce a header which almost everybody in the world would probably want to use by default in every one of their HTTP requests and then say that you can't do that? Ask everyone in the world if they "don't want to be tracked" and 100% will say yes. Ask everyone in the world if they "don't want to be tracked, understanding that is the economic foundation for almost all of the content they enjoy and thus they will either need to directly pay or go without" and somewhere approaching 0% will say yes. DNT is like commercial skippers on PVRs -- it's beneficial to most user's experience if a small enough group of users partake, but very detrimental if a large enough group uses it.
    - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
      In other words, if you word the question to what your position is, you can get most people to agree with you.
      - huggyface 14y ago
        Is reality really a "position"? Personally I think sites should honor the DNT header by implementing a paywall for such users (really the same holds true for Adblock patrons). Ad-supported sites have an implicit two-way contract that you get content that you obviously want in return for providing advertiser value. If you don't want to provide advertiser value, partake of micropayments or some other mechanisms. As someone who would make use of those alternate payment mechanisms, I would welcome that.
        MatthewPhillips 14y ago
        > Is reality really a "position"? Both of the wordings you provided are positions. The first contained no context and the second is opinionated. > Personally I think sites should honor the DNT header by implementing a paywall for such users (really the same holds true for Adblock patrons). Personally I think tracking should be opt-in (by law) and that websites should have to adjust accordingly (whether that be putting up a pay-wall, finding an alternative revenue stream, making less revenue, or going out of business). > Ad-supported sites have an implicit two-way contract that you get content that you obviously want in return for providing advertiser value. Contracts which potentially do harm upon a person should never be implicit. Knowledge of cookies should not be a requirement for internet use. All contracts should be explicit, and agree upon by both parties.
        huggyface 14y ago
        the second is opinionated It is a statement of reality. Choices can have consequences, and giving someone a choice with the implied notion that it is all win -- ignoring the very real consequences -- is a profound lie. The sophistry, and intense myopia around this conversation pushes such limits of intellectual dishonesty that I have to wonder what the agendas really are. Just to be clear, my position is that the world would be a much better world minus all advertisements (television, the web, print, etc). I believe in direct compensation, micropayments, and all of that. But a lot of people think they can have their cake and eat it too, yet they can't.
arscan 14y ago
This doesn't have to do with marketing Internet Explorer as being more secure / privacy friendly. Its about using Internet Explorer's still substantial market share to expose the level of tracking that occurs w/out user knowledge. This hurts companies with an advertising business model (google) because it forces them to either explicitly & openly ignore IE's DNT setting, or to turn off tracking and significantly decrease the value of their advertising. From MS's perspective, that's a win-win.
- huggyface 14y ago
  This doesn't have to do with marketing Internet Explorer as being more secure / privacy friendly Sure it does. When you're losing you need to differentiate, and Microsoft is choosing the "privacy first" route. It's fairly transparent, but it does get them a lot of press (almost all of the "they're really sticking to their principals" variety. At the same time I can't turn on my xbox without endless banners of ads). From MS's perspective, that's a win-win. And from a user's perspective it's a short-term win, long-term loss. I think that the optimal response to IE and DNT is that every ad-supported site puts up a paywall for IE DNT users. If users associated IE with such a negative web experience, its use would quickly crater into the ground.
  - arscan 14y ago
    Fair enough. It is a talking point that puts them on the "right" side of the privacy debate, though I find it hard to believe that people will move from Firefox/chrome because of this feature. Strategically its much more about breaking that which lets companies provide "free" web services, which is something that MS has trouble competing with. Its interesting that google put out chrome to force all browsers to have substantially better performance, thus expediting the migration from local applications to the "cloud". It seems like Microsoft finally decided to use their position to push something else that people care about (privacy) to slow down that migration. Its a long term loss for users if you believe that the loss of control & privacy is worth what you get for free services on the web. Not everybody does.
    - 14y ago

by esolyt 14y ago

aggronn 14y ago

Microsoft just can't win, can they?

Flimm 14y ago
Sure they can. They should do what the W3C wants them to do. But for some reason, in this case, they don't. It makes me want to cry in frustration. DNT was on very shaky grounds to begin with, this just makes things worse.
qntm 14y ago
This is the W3C's problem. "An ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user’s explicit consent"? How, exactly, are they intending to detect the user's explicit consent via the medium of HTTP headers? Why introduce a header which almost everybody in the world would probably want to use by default in every one of their HTTP requests and then say that you can't do that? What if I chose my browser specifically because it has DNT by default? Why introduce a header which doesn't do anything unless you really really want it to? The Explicit Consent Requirement is nonsensical. But then the DNT header itself is also nonsensical, because there's no legislation or tangible benefit to make request handlers respect it. Nobody should be tracked unless they've explicitly asked for it.
- huggyface 14y ago
  Why introduce a header which almost everybody in the world would probably want to use by default in every one of their HTTP requests and then say that you can't do that? Ask everyone in the world if they "don't want to be tracked" and 100% will say yes. Ask everyone in the world if they "don't want to be tracked, understanding that is the economic foundation for almost all of the content they enjoy and thus they will either need to directly pay or go without" and somewhere approaching 0% will say yes. DNT is like commercial skippers on PVRs -- it's beneficial to most user's experience if a small enough group of users partake, but very detrimental if a large enough group uses it.
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    In other words, if you word the question to what your position is, you can get most people to agree with you.
    - huggyface 14y ago
      Is reality really a "position"? Personally I think sites should honor the DNT header by implementing a paywall for such users (really the same holds true for Adblock patrons). Ad-supported sites have an implicit two-way contract that you get content that you obviously want in return for providing advertiser value. If you don't want to provide advertiser value, partake of micropayments or some other mechanisms. As someone who would make use of those alternate payment mechanisms, I would welcome that.
      - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
        > Is reality really a "position"? Both of the wordings you provided are positions. The first contained no context and the second is opinionated. > Personally I think sites should honor the DNT header by implementing a paywall for such users (really the same holds true for Adblock patrons). Personally I think tracking should be opt-in (by law) and that websites should have to adjust accordingly (whether that be putting up a pay-wall, finding an alternative revenue stream, making less revenue, or going out of business). > Ad-supported sites have an implicit two-way contract that you get content that you obviously want in return for providing advertiser value. Contracts which potentially do harm upon a person should never be implicit. Knowledge of cookies should not be a requirement for internet use. All contracts should be explicit, and agree upon by both parties.
        huggyface 14y ago
        the second is opinionated It is a statement of reality. Choices can have consequences, and giving someone a choice with the implied notion that it is all win -- ignoring the very real consequences -- is a profound lie. The sophistry, and intense myopia around this conversation pushes such limits of intellectual dishonesty that I have to wonder what the agendas really are. Just to be clear, my position is that the world would be a much better world minus all advertisements (television, the web, print, etc). I believe in direct compensation, micropayments, and all of that. But a lot of people think they can have their cake and eat it too, yet they can't.

arscan 14y ago

This doesn't have to do with marketing Internet Explorer as being more secure / privacy friendly. Its about using Internet Explorer's still substantial market share to expose the level of tracking that occurs w/out user knowledge. This hurts companies with an advertising business model (google) because it forces them to either explicitly & openly ignore IE's DNT setting, or to turn off tracking and significantly decrease the value of their advertising. From MS's perspective, that's a win-win.

huggyface 14y ago
This doesn't have to do with marketing Internet Explorer as being more secure / privacy friendly Sure it does. When you're losing you need to differentiate, and Microsoft is choosing the "privacy first" route. It's fairly transparent, but it does get them a lot of press (almost all of the "they're really sticking to their principals" variety. At the same time I can't turn on my xbox without endless banners of ads). From MS's perspective, that's a win-win. And from a user's perspective it's a short-term win, long-term loss. I think that the optimal response to IE and DNT is that every ad-supported site puts up a paywall for IE DNT users. If users associated IE with such a negative web experience, its use would quickly crater into the ground.
- arscan 14y ago
  Fair enough. It is a talking point that puts them on the "right" side of the privacy debate, though I find it hard to believe that people will move from Firefox/chrome because of this feature. Strategically its much more about breaking that which lets companies provide "free" web services, which is something that MS has trouble competing with. Its interesting that google put out chrome to force all browsers to have substantially better performance, thus expediting the migration from local applications to the "cloud". It seems like Microsoft finally decided to use their position to push something else that people care about (privacy) to slow down that migration. Its a long term loss for users if you believe that the loss of control & privacy is worth what you get for free services on the web. Not everybody does.
  - 14y ago