4 ms·
People that aren't tech savvy and won't understand how to configure their browser are exactly the reason why DNT should be default. Sites that ignore DNT shoul
by jgrowl 12y ago
People that aren't tech savvy and won't understand how to configure their browser are exactly the reason why DNT should be default.
Sites that ignore DNT should be blacklisted.
- abetaha 12y agoAgree, however if the user sets the DNT explicitly, sites will have no excuse to ignore it anymore.
- chc 12y agoWhat does Do Not Track even mean if it does not signify the user's wishes? Why would people be expected to respect a request not to be recognized that somebody doesn't even know they're making? In its current state, Do Not Track is literally meaningless. Any company that respects Do Not Track is probably just not tracking anyone at all, because as long as Do Not Track is the default, it does not actually represent a user's preference.
- teacup50 12y agoWhy would a user want to be tracked?
- chc 12y agoWell, for example, I've heard more than one person say things along the lines of, "If I'm going to see ads, I would rather see relevant ones than irrelevant ones." But more importantly, this isn't a binary flag. People might want to be tracked, they might want not to be tracked, or — most likely in my opinion — they might not give two hoots. Similarly, when people walk into an physical place, they might want to be looked at, they might not want to be looked at, or they might not be particularly concerned with whether anyone in particular is looking at them.
- teacup50 12y agoThat's nonsense used to justify invasive and immoral tracking, nothing less.
- remarkEon 12y agoI disagree I think. Non tech-savvy people, who don't understand the legal implications of default DNT or don't even know that they ARE being tracked, are precisely the reason why the user must be prompted. You'd never get a site-blacklisting to hold up in court otherwise.
- rascul 12y agoWhat legal implications?