6 ms·

> No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules His website. Seriously, people should be warned that they are tracked, the purpose for which they are tracked

> No, my computer, my browser, my roof, my rules His website. Seriously, people should be warned that they are tracked, the purpose for which they are tracked and what exactly is tracked. Google Search for example is giving warnings lately, that you have to manually dismiss (probably because of EU laws) and I view that as being progress. On the other hand demanding of publishers to not track you while you're on their property is unreasonable. Of course, you can complain about it, you can stop using such services or websites and so on. Voting with your wallet (or eyeballs) still works, even on the web. I also view the "Do Not Track" header as a good thing, because it's an automated way for publishers to respect your wishes, should they choose to do that. But customers must also understand that this header represents a kind request, nothing else and we shouldn't make it something else, as that's a slippery slope.

Nursie 13y ago
>> His website. Running in my browser. >> On the other hand demanding of publishers to not track you while you're on their property is unreasonable. I'm not on their property. I'm fairly happy for them to record what they can see at their end in terms of what pages I go to, but I find it very unreasonable to demand that I run whatever code the website operator asks me to run, to turn my computer into a machine that reports anything/everything about my site interaction to anyone the site owner feels like, and all on the basis of an implied social contract of some form.
- bad_user 13y ago
  If you don't like it, don't use it - simple as that. The only thing I find reasonable is for users to be warned that they are tracked, precisely for enabling them to move to alternatives that better respect their wishes. His website is running in your browser by your choice, not his ;-)
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> If you don't like it, don't use it - simple as that. >> His website is running in your browser by your choice, not his ;-) Excellent, now how do I know ahead of time, or without digging through the source, which sites are going to try and run this stuff? --edit-- Also, and here's the rub - again I just requested some data from his server, and it provided it to me. I made no promise to render or run it in the way he wants. If he has requirements about that sort of thing then maybe he needs to specify them.
    - bad_user 13y ago
      Well, the "Do Not Track" option is too simplistic and probably needs improvements. Ideally, the browser would start by making an OPTIONS request in which the server would reply with something like "yes, I'll track this user in spite of their preferences" (even with a link to their privacy policy) and then the browser could block the view with a warning, just like how Chrome and Firefox are giving warnings for insecure connections, giving users the option to add exceptions or to go somewhere else. This would be fair to both users and publishers.
  - bloopletech 13y ago
    You're making a false dichotomy - you imply the only choices are a) allowing tracking, or b) not using sites that track. As I implied in my other comment, this is a false dichotomy; by using browser extensions, I can and do control my browsing experience to benefit from sites that track while preventing them from tracking. The very concept that I should subject myself to the whims of web sites is completely counter to the history and culture of the net.
  - michaelgrafl 13y ago
    If you don't like it, don't let him use it - simple as that.
    - bad_user 13y ago
      True, this also works.
  - asdasf 13y ago
    Then return an error when requests with the DNT header are made. You can't expect people to magically know ahead of time that your website is being used to spy on them.
  - megablast 13y ago
    > simple as that. Usually when someone says as simple as that, it clearly is not that simple.
bloopletech 13y ago
Actually, I can use your site and benefit from it, while simultaneously blocking your ability to track me. It's called Ghostery (and similar browser extensions). I use Ad-Block Plus and Ghostery for all my web browsing, and have both Ad-Block Plus set to block _all_ ads and Ghostery set to block _all_ tracking scripts. These extensions do not make 'polite requests'; they directly control the browsing experience to my benefit. I (and my extensions) control my browsing experience, not you. (You can argue that this is unfair, but in the long run I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money.)
- bad_user 13y ago
  You do know that you're putting your trust into a browser extension created by a third-party with a shady business agenda, right? http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2280451/Google-Paying-to-Have-Ads-Whitelisted-on-AdBlock-Plus http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2280451/Google-Paying-t...
  - bloopletech 13y ago
    Your comment is FUD. The article you link to starts with truth and then drifts into FUD at the end. See https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#optout https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#optout (I have opted out). I am annoyed that they accept money to whitelist ads and am also annoyed that they allow whitelisting like this at all; however there is a considerable distance between having opt-out whitelisting, and what you're implying.
- thezilch 13y ago
  You do know that sites will track you without javascript or ads? As well, do you browse without cookies and images, as those extensions will not help you there? And without session IDs in URIs, since you seem to want the web to return to byzantine times? > I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money Sites will make less money without use of cookies, images, and support of encoding sessions into URIs. You ARE welcome to use the web without these things, but it is going to mean you are not a customer of many entities, because your kind are vanishingly small in number. You might be interested in the Firefox section of http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=24722 http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=24722, if your serious about your privacy and security.

Nursie 13y ago

>> His website. Running in my browser. >> On the other hand demanding of publishers to not track you while you're on their property is unreasonable. I'm not on their property. I'm fairly happy for them to record what they can see at their end in terms of what pages I go to, but I find it very unreasonable to demand that I run whatever code the website operator asks me to run, to turn my computer into a machine that reports anything/everything about my site interaction to anyone the site owner feels like, and all on the basis of an implied social contract of some form.

bad_user 13y ago
If you don't like it, don't use it - simple as that. The only thing I find reasonable is for users to be warned that they are tracked, precisely for enabling them to move to alternatives that better respect their wishes. His website is running in your browser by your choice, not his ;-)
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> If you don't like it, don't use it - simple as that. >> His website is running in your browser by your choice, not his ;-) Excellent, now how do I know ahead of time, or without digging through the source, which sites are going to try and run this stuff? --edit-- Also, and here's the rub - again I just requested some data from his server, and it provided it to me. I made no promise to render or run it in the way he wants. If he has requirements about that sort of thing then maybe he needs to specify them.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    Well, the "Do Not Track" option is too simplistic and probably needs improvements. Ideally, the browser would start by making an OPTIONS request in which the server would reply with something like "yes, I'll track this user in spite of their preferences" (even with a link to their privacy policy) and then the browser could block the view with a warning, just like how Chrome and Firefox are giving warnings for insecure connections, giving users the option to add exceptions or to go somewhere else. This would be fair to both users and publishers.
- bloopletech 13y ago
  You're making a false dichotomy - you imply the only choices are a) allowing tracking, or b) not using sites that track. As I implied in my other comment, this is a false dichotomy; by using browser extensions, I can and do control my browsing experience to benefit from sites that track while preventing them from tracking. The very concept that I should subject myself to the whims of web sites is completely counter to the history and culture of the net.
- michaelgrafl 13y ago
  If you don't like it, don't let him use it - simple as that.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    True, this also works.
- asdasf 13y ago
  Then return an error when requests with the DNT header are made. You can't expect people to magically know ahead of time that your website is being used to spy on them.
- megablast 13y ago
  > simple as that. Usually when someone says as simple as that, it clearly is not that simple.

bloopletech 13y ago

Actually, I can use your site and benefit from it, while simultaneously blocking your ability to track me. It's called Ghostery (and similar browser extensions). I use Ad-Block Plus and Ghostery for all my web browsing, and have both Ad-Block Plus set to block _all_ ads and Ghostery set to block _all_ tracking scripts. These extensions do not make 'polite requests'; they directly control the browsing experience to my benefit. I (and my extensions) control my browsing experience, not you. (You can argue that this is unfair, but in the long run I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money.)

bad_user 13y ago
You do know that you're putting your trust into a browser extension created by a third-party with a shady business agenda, right? http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2280451/Google-Paying-to-Have-Ads-Whitelisted-on-AdBlock-Plus http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2280451/Google-Paying-t...
- bloopletech 13y ago
  Your comment is FUD. The article you link to starts with truth and then drifts into FUD at the end. See https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#optout https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#optout (I have opted out). I am annoyed that they accept money to whitelist ads and am also annoyed that they allow whitelisting like this at all; however there is a considerable distance between having opt-out whitelisting, and what you're implying.
thezilch 13y ago
You do know that sites will track you without javascript or ads? As well, do you browse without cookies and images, as those extensions will not help you there? And without session IDs in URIs, since you seem to want the web to return to byzantine times? > I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money Sites will make less money without use of cookies, images, and support of encoding sessions into URIs. You ARE welcome to use the web without these things, but it is going to mean you are not a customer of many entities, because your kind are vanishingly small in number. You might be interested in the Firefox section of http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=24722 http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=24722, if your serious about your privacy and security.