6 ms·

DNT header already does this. Explicit denial of consent. Reaches their servers before everything else so they have no excuse and zero room for maneuvering. No

DNT header already does this. Explicit denial of consent. Reaches their servers before everything else so they have no excuse and zero room for maneuvering. Now the EU just needs to turn it into an actual liability for corporations. Otherwise it will remain as an additional bit of entropy for tracking.

briandear 1y ago
It’s not just corporations. Look how much tracking nonsense goes into a recipe blog.
- account42 1y ago
  Recipe blogs are mostly "corporations" even if small ones. Most things you find at the top of Google search results aren't just enthusiastic individuals sharing their personal ideas with you but businesses who work hard to make sure you go to their websites rather than better ones.
rcxdude 1y ago
The fact that it was turned on by default in edge really hurt it as an argument under these laws, because it then turned into a 'well we don't know the user actually selected this' thing. Making it explicitly have the force of law regardless would still be a good thing, though.
- throw_a_grenade 1y ago
  No, this wrong. The law says that by default you can't process personal data, unless the user gave consent. That setting matched both the expectation of users and the default as specified by the law. The story that advertisers don't know what users selected and that somehow allows them to track the user is disingenous.
  - rcxdude 1y ago
    It doesn't allow them to track, but it does allow them to more convincingly argue that they can nag them about it (I think some regulators in some EU countries have rejected this, but I don't think this is universal). i.e. it makes it ineffective as a means of stopping the annoying pop-ups. Because the companies are basically belligerent about it there needs to be a clear declaration of 'if this header is set you may not track _and_ you may not bug the user about it'
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      How are they supposed to ask for consent then?
      - rcxdude 1y ago
        If the user has already indicated that they don't consent by setting the header, you don't ask. If they want to change, make it available as a setting. (and frankly, the number of users that actively want to consent to this is essentially zero)
        charcircuit 1y ago
        What if the user doesn't know they have that setting enabled. Or they enabled it to block some other company than your own. I always constent to cookie popups so the number can not be 0.
        rcxdude 1y ago
        Hence why I think the default hurt the initiative. And the header could be set on a per-domain basis, if you wanted that for some reason. I'm curious, why do you consent on such pop-ups?
        speleding 1y ago
        I always consent as well. They can show much more relevant ads when you consent to cookies. If I block cookies I get generic ads about stuff I don't care about.
pwdisswordfishy 1y ago
They can't. The website may very well do the opposite of the preference DNT signals. Meanwhile, proving in a court of law that the tracking still happens will be hard. Services should be denied the capacity to track and fingerprint, not just told about a preference against it. DNT will always be an "evil bit", regardless of any law behind it.
- arbol 1y ago
  How do you deny the capacity to fingerprint? That's basically disabling JavaScript.
  - artyom 1y ago
    Essentially the same way uBlock Origin worked. A global list of offenders to block so that Javascript won't be loaded at all. Asking browsers to implement uBlock Origin natively tho...
  - avmich 1y ago
    Adding a different web page-resident language?
- Jensson 1y ago
  > They can't. The website may very well do the opposite of the preference DNT signals. Meanwhile, proving in a court of law that the tracking still happens will be hard. Its not hard when it comes to any website of note, large companies can't easily hide what their computers are doing really, if they have code that tracks people it is gonna be found.
techjamie 1y ago
DNT is considered deprecated in favor of GPC, which has legal backing in places with internet privacy laws. Funnily, Chrome still supports DNT but you need an extension to send a GPC header. Almost like the advertisement company wouldn't want people enabling legal privacy protections.
- fmajid 1y ago
  GPC compliance is already the law in California. I don’t know why the EU has been so slow at making it legally binding. That said, existing cookie popups that don’t have “Reject All” as prominently placed as “Accept All” are already illegal but widespread, in no small part due to deliberate sabotage by the Irish DPA, so don’t expect GPC compliance to fare any better until consumer rights associations like NOYB.eu are allowed to initiate direct enforcement actions.
- kuschku 1y ago
  In Germany, DNT is legally binding, but GPC is not.
  - account42 1y ago
    Sounds like we need browsers to select the correct header based on server IP lol.
- manbitesdog 1y ago
  Plus, all GPC extensions advertised by the offical GPC pack other unsolicited privacy features and freemium models. I ended up building an extension https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/gpc-enabler/ilknagnpcicckgohjailfooamibaolnj https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/gpc-enabler/ilknagn...
- extraduder_ire 1y ago
  EU law typically has a lead time of at least two years.

briandear 1y ago

It’s not just corporations. Look how much tracking nonsense goes into a recipe blog.

account42 1y ago
Recipe blogs are mostly "corporations" even if small ones. Most things you find at the top of Google search results aren't just enthusiastic individuals sharing their personal ideas with you but businesses who work hard to make sure you go to their websites rather than better ones.

rcxdude 1y ago

The fact that it was turned on by default in edge really hurt it as an argument under these laws, because it then turned into a 'well we don't know the user actually selected this' thing. Making it explicitly have the force of law regardless would still be a good thing, though.

throw_a_grenade 1y ago
No, this wrong. The law says that by default you can't process personal data, unless the user gave consent. That setting matched both the expectation of users and the default as specified by the law. The story that advertisers don't know what users selected and that somehow allows them to track the user is disingenous.
- rcxdude 1y ago
  It doesn't allow them to track, but it does allow them to more convincingly argue that they can nag them about it (I think some regulators in some EU countries have rejected this, but I don't think this is universal). i.e. it makes it ineffective as a means of stopping the annoying pop-ups. Because the companies are basically belligerent about it there needs to be a clear declaration of 'if this header is set you may not track _and_ you may not bug the user about it'
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    How are they supposed to ask for consent then?
    - rcxdude 1y ago
      If the user has already indicated that they don't consent by setting the header, you don't ask. If they want to change, make it available as a setting. (and frankly, the number of users that actively want to consent to this is essentially zero)
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        What if the user doesn't know they have that setting enabled. Or they enabled it to block some other company than your own. I always constent to cookie popups so the number can not be 0.
        rcxdude 1y ago
        Hence why I think the default hurt the initiative. And the header could be set on a per-domain basis, if you wanted that for some reason. I'm curious, why do you consent on such pop-ups?
        speleding 1y ago
        I always consent as well. They can show much more relevant ads when you consent to cookies. If I block cookies I get generic ads about stuff I don't care about.

pwdisswordfishy 1y ago

They can't. The website may very well do the opposite of the preference DNT signals. Meanwhile, proving in a court of law that the tracking still happens will be hard. Services should be denied the capacity to track and fingerprint, not just told about a preference against it. DNT will always be an "evil bit", regardless of any law behind it.

arbol 1y ago
How do you deny the capacity to fingerprint? That's basically disabling JavaScript.
- artyom 1y ago
  Essentially the same way uBlock Origin worked. A global list of offenders to block so that Javascript won't be loaded at all. Asking browsers to implement uBlock Origin natively tho...
- avmich 1y ago
  Adding a different web page-resident language?
Jensson 1y ago
> They can't. The website may very well do the opposite of the preference DNT signals. Meanwhile, proving in a court of law that the tracking still happens will be hard. Its not hard when it comes to any website of note, large companies can't easily hide what their computers are doing really, if they have code that tracks people it is gonna be found.

techjamie 1y ago

DNT is considered deprecated in favor of GPC, which has legal backing in places with internet privacy laws. Funnily, Chrome still supports DNT but you need an extension to send a GPC header. Almost like the advertisement company wouldn't want people enabling legal privacy protections.

fmajid 1y ago
GPC compliance is already the law in California. I don’t know why the EU has been so slow at making it legally binding. That said, existing cookie popups that don’t have “Reject All” as prominently placed as “Accept All” are already illegal but widespread, in no small part due to deliberate sabotage by the Irish DPA, so don’t expect GPC compliance to fare any better until consumer rights associations like NOYB.eu are allowed to initiate direct enforcement actions.
kuschku 1y ago
In Germany, DNT is legally binding, but GPC is not.
- account42 1y ago
  Sounds like we need browsers to select the correct header based on server IP lol.
manbitesdog 1y ago
Plus, all GPC extensions advertised by the offical GPC pack other unsolicited privacy features and freemium models. I ended up building an extension https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/gpc-enabler/ilknagnpcicckgohjailfooamibaolnj https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/gpc-enabler/ilknagn...
extraduder_ire 1y ago
EU law typically has a lead time of at least two years.