8 ms·

Do Not Track is silly. For example: You come on to my site, I want to know how you're using it, I don't want your personal details, I just want to see how you'

Do Not Track is silly. For example: You come on to my site, I want to know how you're using it, I don't want your personal details, I just want to see how you're interacting with the site I've made for you. Why do I want to know? Well it depends on the purpose of the site, but for the most part it is so that I can optimise and improve what my site offers to you and others. But you've politely requested that I don't track you. For starters this should only ever be a polite request, not a forced rejection of any tracking scripts. I have a right to track how people use my site. You have a right to privacy, but that's got bugger all to do with you coming on to my site, once you've made that choice you are within my domain, under my roof, living by my rules. Until you leave of course. Some sites may respect that request, but they're the kind of site who have no need to track behaviour anyhow, and are likely not tracking to begin with. kind of makes the request moot. People get way too offended by analytics tracking when it's there for their benefit. The internet would be one ugly place if webmasters and designers had no clue how people were interacting with it. If you want to go back to the dark ages then feel free to try. But you won't benefit from the advances we've made or are yet to make because of large scale, anonymous tracking across the web. I've no respect for Do Not Track. It is a silly, backwards, progress-endangering concept that should be burnt on a pyre. Think of a scenario where a site is maliciously tracking you, where a forced browser level request could to not track be sent, and maybe we'll talk. But then again I'll probably just retort that any malicious tracking will have a way around such a forced request, and so it's pointless. Do Not Track is snake oil for the conscientious objector.

Nursie 13y ago
>> I have a right to track how people use my site. But you don't have a right to say what runs on my computer, or make it tell you what I'm doing. This is where our perceived rights collide. >> once you've made that choice you are within my domain, under my roof, living by my rules. No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules. >> People get way too offended by analytics tracking when it's there for their benefit. No, people get offended when you try to turn their computer into a device that spies on them. And we get more offended that this sort of stuff happens without most people even being aware its going on. They may or may not object to it, but right now they don't even know. And it's so lovely of you to have made the decision for me that it's to my benefit, so I don't have to worry about pesky things like privacy concerns, or having control over my own computing. >> Do Not Track is snake oil for the conscientious objector. This is about the only thing we agree on. It's pointless and it was never going to achieve anything.
- toble 13y ago
  > No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules. I think of websites like private properties. You are given conditional access on the assumption that you can behave (T&C / AUP), otherwise it's like trespassing. So, I don't think that people should expect excessive rights of freedom that they might have on their own property or even in public. It's a balancing act.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    That's really not how I think, nor does it really reflect reality, IMHO. They are on my property, it's all rendered and running in my browser on my device. All that's happened is I've requested some data from the server and they've given it to me, from then on how I display it and what gets run is entirely up to me. If we want to attach terms and conditions to it (i.e. to use this site you must accept analytics/tracking/advertising) then lets make a framework to automate this stuff. I'm perfectly happy for my browser to say, up-front, that it won't be displaying graphical ads and it won't be running any known trackers or analytic suites, it won't be providing you any location data, nor will it be loading any social media buttons or widgets. You can then decide if you want to give me your data. That would be fine. But I'm not buying into some idea of an implied social contract to let website owners do what the hell they want with my device.
    - stingraycharles 13y ago
      > If we want to attach terms and conditions to it (i.e. to use this site you must accept analytics/tracking/advertising) then lets make a framework to automate this stuff. This has already been done years ago, and failed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P
      - Nursie 13y ago
        Shame, that sounds quite good.
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
ronaldx 13y ago
> People get way too offended by analytics tracking when it's there for their benefit. Strong disagree. Whether a user finds benefit from tracking is the opinion of the user, not the opinion of the site doing the tracking. It's very arrogant for a site to say "I'm doing this to you for your benefit", especially if it's not made clear what this is. If you find yourself having to tell someone that what you are doing is for their benefit, without explaining exactly what you are doing and why, you can safely assume it's not genuinely for their benefit. I can agree that malicious tracking cannot be prevented - but this does not mean that benign sites are implicitly permitted to maliciously track people. That is totally unethical.
eksith 13y ago
"once you've made that choice you are within my domain" Often, I haven't made that decision; an ad/tracking/analytic company has made the decision for me and often not for my benefit. If I'm visiting a site that talks about rocketry and I'm suddenly being served ads for fishing lures and rods because 10 minutes prior, I was searching for fishing reels, it feels creepy. And it's entirely your opinion that feeling creepy about being served ads for something I'm not currently looking at is wanting "to go back to the dark ages". Take it in another way. If I'm visiting a flea market on Saturday morning and going by some stalls that sell home made cookies and such, I'm fine getting a flyer for pastries, donuts and cakes. I'm not fine getting a flyer for an 18 pack of socks at the cookie stall because Friday night after work, I went shopping for boxers at a completely different place. Since many advertisers seem to have the Zuckerberg mindset when it comes to privacy and the mere notion of wanting to remain "un-caterered to" no matter how helpful and in my benefit you think it is, we're forced to take measures into our own hands. BTW... Mozilla.org not respecting Do Not Track is exactly what I expected since they've decided that my request is needless considering what they produce.
delinka 13y ago
Rather than attempt to reply to all the misconceptions below, I figured I'd post here. I'm not on your server. My browser isn't on your site. It sent a request to your server to send me a copy of some content. Your server sent that content. It's all on my computer. This, in my opinion, is why Do Not Track is silly: You, nor your server, have any right to the expectation that I'll send tracking information (that your site provided in, say, a cookie) with every request. Meaning that the browser makers should be providing users options in this space- the power lies entirely with the browser makers and their users. Of course, completely omitting cookies and other tracking details leaves you, the site owner, making assumptions about user behavior on your site from a limited number of details like IP address and perhaps user agent strings. The ever popular cookie was the answer to maintaining session data across requests, and Double Click made famous the idea of tracking users across many sites (by embedding their assets [a blank pixel, a JavaScript, etc] and giving the user a doubleclick.net cookie.) Double Click's concept was, in the minds of most Internet users, a perversion of the purpose of cookies.
nfoz 13y ago
> I have the right to track how people use my site. lol no you don't. You're choosing to respond to HTTP requests to your site, you put it out in public. I'll make whatever requests I want to your site and do whatever I want with what you give me, which may include rendering some or all parts of a "web page" as I see fit. If I give you some data in turn, sure, do what you want with it. Do Not Track is silly because it's based on trust. I don't trust you to not track me even if I ask you not to. The only privacy is when I choose not to send you data (and I shouldn't, and browsers are horrible in this regard, they have failed their users).
jackalope 13y ago
People get way too offended by analytics tracking when it's there for their benefit. While I agree with the rest of your comment, isn't it possible that analytics is just snake oil for webmasters? The third party services like GA collect a staggering amount of real-time aggregate data in return for sharing a sliver of it with webmasters in the form of pretty graphs. I'm not saying this information isn't useful, but can webmasters reconcile the results against their own logs? Can they submit sanitized logs for analysis instead of including code in web pages, so they can proactively protect user privacy while sharing only the minimum data necessary for their needs? In any case, analytics services aren't motivated purely by altruism and their business model plausibly extends beyond purely providing a service to webmasters.

Nursie 13y ago

>> I have a right to track how people use my site. But you don't have a right to say what runs on my computer, or make it tell you what I'm doing. This is where our perceived rights collide. >> once you've made that choice you are within my domain, under my roof, living by my rules. No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules. >> People get way too offended by analytics tracking when it's there for their benefit. No, people get offended when you try to turn their computer into a device that spies on them. And we get more offended that this sort of stuff happens without most people even being aware its going on. They may or may not object to it, but right now they don't even know. And it's so lovely of you to have made the decision for me that it's to my benefit, so I don't have to worry about pesky things like privacy concerns, or having control over my own computing. >> Do Not Track is snake oil for the conscientious objector. This is about the only thing we agree on. It's pointless and it was never going to achieve anything.

toble 13y ago
> No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules. I think of websites like private properties. You are given conditional access on the assumption that you can behave (T&C / AUP), otherwise it's like trespassing. So, I don't think that people should expect excessive rights of freedom that they might have on their own property or even in public. It's a balancing act.
- Nursie 13y ago
  That's really not how I think, nor does it really reflect reality, IMHO. They are on my property, it's all rendered and running in my browser on my device. All that's happened is I've requested some data from the server and they've given it to me, from then on how I display it and what gets run is entirely up to me. If we want to attach terms and conditions to it (i.e. to use this site you must accept analytics/tracking/advertising) then lets make a framework to automate this stuff. I'm perfectly happy for my browser to say, up-front, that it won't be displaying graphical ads and it won't be running any known trackers or analytic suites, it won't be providing you any location data, nor will it be loading any social media buttons or widgets. You can then decide if you want to give me your data. That would be fine. But I'm not buying into some idea of an implied social contract to let website owners do what the hell they want with my device.
  - stingraycharles 13y ago
    > If we want to attach terms and conditions to it (i.e. to use this site you must accept analytics/tracking/advertising) then lets make a framework to automate this stuff. This has already been done years ago, and failed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P
    - Nursie 13y ago
      Shame, that sounds quite good.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago

ronaldx 13y ago

> People get way too offended by analytics tracking when it's there for their benefit. Strong disagree. Whether a user finds benefit from tracking is the opinion of the user, not the opinion of the site doing the tracking. It's very arrogant for a site to say "I'm doing this to you for your benefit", especially if it's not made clear what this is. If you find yourself having to tell someone that what you are doing is for their benefit, without explaining exactly what you are doing and why, you can safely assume it's not genuinely for their benefit. I can agree that malicious tracking cannot be prevented - but this does not mean that benign sites are implicitly permitted to maliciously track people. That is totally unethical.

eksith 13y ago

"once you've made that choice you are within my domain" Often, I haven't made that decision; an ad/tracking/analytic company has made the decision for me and often not for my benefit. If I'm visiting a site that talks about rocketry and I'm suddenly being served ads for fishing lures and rods because 10 minutes prior, I was searching for fishing reels, it feels creepy. And it's entirely your opinion that feeling creepy about being served ads for something I'm not currently looking at is wanting "to go back to the dark ages". Take it in another way. If I'm visiting a flea market on Saturday morning and going by some stalls that sell home made cookies and such, I'm fine getting a flyer for pastries, donuts and cakes. I'm not fine getting a flyer for an 18 pack of socks at the cookie stall because Friday night after work, I went shopping for boxers at a completely different place. Since many advertisers seem to have the Zuckerberg mindset when it comes to privacy and the mere notion of wanting to remain "un-caterered to" no matter how helpful and in my benefit you think it is, we're forced to take measures into our own hands. BTW... Mozilla.org not respecting Do Not Track is exactly what I expected since they've decided that my request is needless considering what they produce.

delinka 13y ago

Rather than attempt to reply to all the misconceptions below, I figured I'd post here. I'm not on your server. My browser isn't on your site. It sent a request to your server to send me a copy of some content. Your server sent that content. It's all on my computer. This, in my opinion, is why Do Not Track is silly: You, nor your server, have any right to the expectation that I'll send tracking information (that your site provided in, say, a cookie) with every request. Meaning that the browser makers should be providing users options in this space- the power lies entirely with the browser makers and their users. Of course, completely omitting cookies and other tracking details leaves you, the site owner, making assumptions about user behavior on your site from a limited number of details like IP address and perhaps user agent strings. The ever popular cookie was the answer to maintaining session data across requests, and Double Click made famous the idea of tracking users across many sites (by embedding their assets [a blank pixel, a JavaScript, etc] and giving the user a doubleclick.net cookie.) Double Click's concept was, in the minds of most Internet users, a perversion of the purpose of cookies.

nfoz 13y ago

> I have the right to track how people use my site. lol no you don't. You're choosing to respond to HTTP requests to your site, you put it out in public. I'll make whatever requests I want to your site and do whatever I want with what you give me, which may include rendering some or all parts of a "web page" as I see fit. If I give you some data in turn, sure, do what you want with it. Do Not Track is silly because it's based on trust. I don't trust you to not track me even if I ask you not to. The only privacy is when I choose not to send you data (and I shouldn't, and browsers are horrible in this regard, they have failed their users).

jackalope 13y ago

People get way too offended by analytics tracking when it's there for their benefit. While I agree with the rest of your comment, isn't it possible that analytics is just snake oil for webmasters? The third party services like GA collect a staggering amount of real-time aggregate data in return for sharing a sliver of it with webmasters in the form of pretty graphs. I'm not saying this information isn't useful, but can webmasters reconcile the results against their own logs? Can they submit sanitized logs for analysis instead of including code in web pages, so they can proactively protect user privacy while sharing only the minimum data necessary for their needs? In any case, analytics services aren't motivated purely by altruism and their business model plausibly extends beyond purely providing a service to webmasters.