3 ms·

I'm not worried about outlaws tracking me, it's the thousands of legitimate, legal tracking companies that worry me!

• stephengillie 11y ago
  Edit: there's not even a law! It's just a voluntary agreement. How many of them will just ignore the agreement and keep doing business as usual? Why wouldn't they?
  • jessaustin 11y ago
    Perhaps this depends on the definition of "legitimate"? Many reasonable definitions will change the quantity from "thousands" to "several".
  • joosters 11y ago
    Far fewer. And it will make it more difficult for them to sell their analytics data on to legitimate companies when it is easily shown that they are breaking the law. I don't get your objection. Are you really complaining that if a law/agreement isn't 100% effective then it is worthless?
    • stephengillie 11y ago
      My objection is that I don't understand how it will work this time. I don't expect tracking companies to voluntarily obey a setting that loses them money; I don't expect people to act economically illogical. And why would other industry members voluntarily lose money by ignoring DNT results? Do you really think advertisers care what their products think? The only way we've got this attention is with widespread use of adblocking software.
      • joosters 11y ago
        Oh, I agree with you, I doubt that analytics companies will voluntarily sign up to this new code of practice. Your talk of 'outlaws' meant, to my eyes, a more hypothetical situation where some form of DNT was passed in to law. At the moment, companies that ignore DNT are not outlaws.