This reminds me of the MPAA and the formation of the hollywood "production code". In the late twenties there was pressure from the american public to reign in

This reminds me of the MPAA and the formation of the hollywood "production code". In the late twenties there was pressure from the american public to reign in what could be shown in movies. Hollywood was absolutely terrified of what might happen if the government listened and imposed regulation on their industry, so they adopted the code to make that unnecessary. Movies that didn't obey the code were locked out of theaters, so the code was obeyed. Hollywood, not Washington, decided what the code was. In the end, the code died without any pricey court challenges or lobbying. Hollywood just abandoned it when american society became more permissive. The "Do Not Track" flag is similar to the late-twenties public outcry against the content of movies. The difference is, the ad industry totally failed to act on it. Instead, their tracking only grew more invasive. Now, they pay for their hubris. They didn't regulate themselves to meet public demand, so the public has demanded that regulations be imposed on them. There's no international government of the internet however, so in comes Mozilla. It's still a thoroughly democratic process however, since people can vote with their choice of browser and not opting out of the cookie tracker. If the ad industry were to act fast and make a big show of respecting "Do not track" flags and find ways to enforce this policy amongst their peers, this might remove the allure of cookie white-lists. Honestly though, I have no idea how they'd manage to do that, let alone fast. If the ship hasn't sailed just yet, it's certainly cast off the last line. Moral of the story: The public will get what it wants. If they want you restrained, either do it yourself of watch somebody else do it.