4 ms·

> What the fuck, Turn? You got a different explanation for what the fuck "Do Not Track" means? Easy there. IE10 defaults to Do Not Track enabled. So sending t

by quesera 12y ago

> What the fuck, Turn? You got a different explanation for what the fuck "Do Not Track" means? Easy there. IE10 defaults to Do Not Track enabled. So sending the header is not explicitly representative of the user's wishes. Convenient, isn't it?

fortmeaded 12y ago
Splitting hairs, but it's not exactly a default. It's a preselected option. The user gets some notice and has to accept.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  I think that's a difference without a distinction.
coherentpony 12y ago
> IE10 defaults to Do Not Track enabled. So sending the header is not explicitly representative of the user's wishes. "By signing up for [insert service here], you agree to the privacy policy." How many times did you actually agree with the privacy policy? Devil's advocate, I know, but it's a sobering reminder that pretty much anything you use gives information that is sold. Open a bank account? If so, notice any new junk mail? Pretty hard to live life without a bank account. Your information is still sold to third parties.
- plorg 12y ago
  To play another devil's advocate, shouldn't that also imply that IE10 users sending Do Not Track are in fact explicitly representing their desire not to be tracked? I mean by that same argument the user, by using Windows/IE10 did in fact choose the default settings of the browser, per the terms and conditions agreed to upon installing/purchasing Windows/IE. Live by the T&C, die by the T&C - unless you can hide your scumminess through underhanded or obfuscated tactics.
  - merrua 12y ago
    http://xkcd.com/1432/ http://xkcd.com/1432/
hackuser 12y ago
> IE10 defaults to Do Not Track enabled. So sending the header is not explicitly representative of the user's wishes. > Convenient, isn't it? That might be an excuse, but it's not the reason. They easily could read the DNT header and the user agent, and trust DNT headers from non-IE10 browsers.
- quesera 12y ago
  Absolutely. They're interpreting the situation with strict literality because it is in their benefit to do so. They have a perfectly valid reason for what they do: it's strongly beneficial to their business model to operate in a scummy but probably-legal way. They are hardly unique in this. Since we have little market recourse (Verizon is often the only option, and we are not customers of Turn), and we have no legal recourse (again, scummy but almost certainly legal in almost all circumstances)...what is left? Well, there are technical solutions to the problem. TLS is a good start. Browsers can be smarter about third party cookies. The Verizon Overcookie can be stripped by a proxy. VPN can solve many problems... This glommed on tracking junk is fragile. I strongly resent being drawn into the arms race, but it is winnable. It will take something dramatic (and who knows how long) for our outrage to be shared by a critical mass of customers/voters, so for now, I think technology is the solution. But I donate to EFF too.
- cpeterso 12y ago
  This is why Apache added code to ignore IE10's DNT header: http://www.cnet.com/news/apache-web-software-overrides-ie10-do-not-track-setting/ http://www.cnet.com/news/apache-web-software-overrides-ie10-... https://github.com/apache/httpd/commit/a381ff35fa4d50a5f7b9f64300dfd98859dee8d0 https://github.com/apache/httpd/commit/a381ff35fa4d50a5f7b9f... but, ironically, it was soon disabled by default: https://github.com/apache/httpd/commit/3dd6fb6882ae2b453c90d51e777e88bc420a0cb1 https://github.com/apache/httpd/commit/3dd6fb6882ae2b453c90d...
rhizome 12y ago
If the tables were turned, the tracking would be a CFAA violation.
yellowapple 12y ago
I don't use Internet Explorer. I use Firefox. If I have Do Not Track set (which I do), it means that I have explicitly requested to not be tracked, and that such a header is explicitly representative of my wishes. The sooner we have a full list of all companies which are doing business with Turn, the happier I'll be, since that would provide me with a better target for my (admittedly excessively) strongly-worded frustration.

by quesera 12y ago

fortmeaded 12y ago

Splitting hairs, but it's not exactly a default. It's a preselected option. The user gets some notice and has to accept.

higherpurpose 12y ago
I think that's a difference without a distinction.

coherentpony 12y ago

> IE10 defaults to Do Not Track enabled. So sending the header is not explicitly representative of the user's wishes. "By signing up for [insert service here], you agree to the privacy policy." How many times did you actually agree with the privacy policy? Devil's advocate, I know, but it's a sobering reminder that pretty much anything you use gives information that is sold. Open a bank account? If so, notice any new junk mail? Pretty hard to live life without a bank account. Your information is still sold to third parties.

plorg 12y ago
To play another devil's advocate, shouldn't that also imply that IE10 users sending Do Not Track are in fact explicitly representing their desire not to be tracked? I mean by that same argument the user, by using Windows/IE10 did in fact choose the default settings of the browser, per the terms and conditions agreed to upon installing/purchasing Windows/IE. Live by the T&C, die by the T&C - unless you can hide your scumminess through underhanded or obfuscated tactics.
- merrua 12y ago
  http://xkcd.com/1432/ http://xkcd.com/1432/

hackuser 12y ago

> IE10 defaults to Do Not Track enabled. So sending the header is not explicitly representative of the user's wishes. > Convenient, isn't it? That might be an excuse, but it's not the reason. They easily could read the DNT header and the user agent, and trust DNT headers from non-IE10 browsers.

quesera 12y ago
Absolutely. They're interpreting the situation with strict literality because it is in their benefit to do so. They have a perfectly valid reason for what they do: it's strongly beneficial to their business model to operate in a scummy but probably-legal way. They are hardly unique in this. Since we have little market recourse (Verizon is often the only option, and we are not customers of Turn), and we have no legal recourse (again, scummy but almost certainly legal in almost all circumstances)...what is left? Well, there are technical solutions to the problem. TLS is a good start. Browsers can be smarter about third party cookies. The Verizon Overcookie can be stripped by a proxy. VPN can solve many problems... This glommed on tracking junk is fragile. I strongly resent being drawn into the arms race, but it is winnable. It will take something dramatic (and who knows how long) for our outrage to be shared by a critical mass of customers/voters, so for now, I think technology is the solution. But I donate to EFF too.
cpeterso 12y ago
This is why Apache added code to ignore IE10's DNT header: http://www.cnet.com/news/apache-web-software-overrides-ie10-do-not-track-setting/ http://www.cnet.com/news/apache-web-software-overrides-ie10-... https://github.com/apache/httpd/commit/a381ff35fa4d50a5f7b9f64300dfd98859dee8d0 https://github.com/apache/httpd/commit/a381ff35fa4d50a5f7b9f... but, ironically, it was soon disabled by default: https://github.com/apache/httpd/commit/3dd6fb6882ae2b453c90d51e777e88bc420a0cb1 https://github.com/apache/httpd/commit/3dd6fb6882ae2b453c90d...

rhizome 12y ago

If the tables were turned, the tracking would be a CFAA violation.

yellowapple 12y ago

I don't use Internet Explorer. I use Firefox. If I have Do Not Track set (which I do), it means that I have explicitly requested to not be tracked, and that such a header is explicitly representative of my wishes. The sooner we have a full list of all companies which are doing business with Turn, the happier I'll be, since that would provide me with a better target for my (admittedly excessively) strongly-worded frustration.