Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Adding "Do-Not-Track" To Safari

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the honor-system-will-work-fine dept.

Google 126

bonch writes "The latest developer preview of OS X Lion includes a 'do not track' privacy feature in Safari, the latest browser to do so following Mozilla Firefox and Microsoft Internet Explorer. The feature complies with a privacy system backed by the FTC that allows users to declare that they do not wish to be tracked by online advertisers. This leaves Google Chrome as the last prominent browser not to support the feature. As an online advertiser themselves, Google states that they 'will continue to be involved closely' with industry discussions about compliance with the do-not-track system."

cancel ×

126 comments

do not first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35816678)

...has still not been implemented by slashdot....

In other news ... (4, Funny)

bigjocker (113512) | more than 3 years ago | (#35816692)

Microsoft added a 'Do Not Crack' plea button to Internet Explorer ... hackers were unavailable for comments on whether this new button will convince them of leaving the browser alone

Re:In other news ... (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35816868)

Anyone still using IE probably needs a "Do Not Use Crack" button more.

Re:In other news ... (1)

MarkRose (820682) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817030)

But who's to say IE's developers will pay any attention to it?

Re:In other news ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817354)

You two just made my week! :D

Re:In other news ... (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817642)

I like how people feel the need to add some good old Microsoft Bashing in an Apple history (which, for all its worth, it's pretty much impossible to comment on).

Re:In other news ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35818618)

C'mon, it was pretty funny this time around....

Re:In other news ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35818234)

Along with Do Not Hack?
Do not Mac?
Do not Stack?

fix safaris others.bugs first (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35816716)

slashdot still dosent work properly in iOS safari, leaving you not able to see all comments.

Use Chrome Block (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35816728)

There is an excellent 3rd party extension for Chrome called "ChromeBlock" that opts you out of ad tracking networks. I use this combined with one called "Disconnect" that dispersonalizes searches and blocks 3rd party sites from tracking you.

Re:Use Chrome Block (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817888)

There is also Ghostery, which blocks ad networks altogether (though it is a bit flimsy in Chrome (as is Disconnect), because of Chrome's lack of proper resource blocking support).

Re:Use Chrome Block (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35818198)

ChromeBlock is made by Abine. You shouldn't trust that company.

Chrome has a privacy mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35816734)

Chrome already has "incognito mode," so I'm not sure what more you could want from a browser if there is any concern about privacy.

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (1)

Oh Gawwd Peak Oil (1000227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35816870)

But . . . it's not called "Do not track"! Dont' you understand? It's obviously inferior!

In other news, Firefox has bookmarks but it still doesn't have a feature called "Favorites" like Internet Explorer does. When will it ever get with the program? Oh, and when will it ever catch up to IE9 in version numbering???

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35816988)

Except that it's a completely different thing that solves a completely unrelated problem.

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817050)

Except that it's a completely different thing that solves a completely unrelated problem.

OK but that's all I want to hear about your penis enlarger.

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817128)

Fine, but don't come crying when your partner dumps you for someone who did. Well actually do come crying, there's a deluxe model you see...

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35816900)

Incognito mode ('porn mode' to its friends) attacks an entirely different class of privacy problem.

The interpersonal privacy compromise problem is a legitimate one. Potentially embarrassing or worse. Incognito mode does a reasonably effective job of stopping that one(I haven't read up on whether or not the latest forensics packages can do anything against it; but the contents of a closed incognito session are safe enough from your roommate/spouse/kids/nosy sibling/etc.)

Against remote 3rd parties, though, incognito mode is highly limited. It does flush cookies when the session is terminated, which is better than nothing; but with most broadband IPs being close to static, it often isn't rocket surgery to correlate and reconstruct user activity even if you lose some cookies(indeed, being able to run an incognito session and a standard session at the same time and on the same host probably makes that easier, unlike the older, cruder methods where the user manually wiped all their sessions after a period of time).

They are really two entirely different classes of threat.

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817180)

I rated your post informative, but I not quite sure I understand the problem here. (And how firefox for exemple do a better job at kepping your browsing secret...)

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (4, Informative)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817284)

To summarise:

"Privacy Mode" means "Do not store information about what I've been doing ON THIS COMPUTER"
"Do not Track" means "Dear Advertisers, Do not store information about what I've been doing ON YOUR SERVERS"

Large difference.

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817486)

Of course(and this is the big, big 'remains to be see' part) is that 'Privacy Mode' concerns something happening on a box you physically and(unless rooted) logically control. Enforcing it is just a matter of writing the software(which, under different names, I believe pretty much all browser producers have now done).

'Do not track', however, is just a polite request(similar to a robots.txt). There is absolutely no way of technologically forcing compliance(other schemes, like assorted cookie-handling plugins, tor routing, and such attempt to solve the problem technologically, with varying degrees of success and tradeoffs. DNT is just a psuedo-standard way of asking). If major players actually buy in, it could end up being quite useful(given that outwitting data-mining professionals is a bit of a cat-and-mouse, particularly for Joe User). If major players ignore it, or farm out plausible-deniability subsidiaries to do it for them, DNT will be a dead letter.

In the case of robots.txt, ignoring that is considered rather tasteless, and most big players tend not to; but there is nothing stopping a wildcat player or a proxy entity from trampling all over it. DNT's cultural status has yet to be determined. Since that is still up in the air, supporting it is a nice gesture; but provides an unknown(and at present likely fairly minimal) degree of protection.

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817662)

One can use tools like sandboxie to help with making sure browsing traces are isolated from each other, and when done with the site, end up being gone, which helps local security, as well as remote security.

For local security, putting the sandbox from sandboxie on a TrueCrypt partition and having sandboxie do a wipe when deleting the sandbox is good. Not just security from someone nosy with an undelete utility, but having file isolation so that possibly damaging stuff never ends up on the same drive as the OS or documents. The TC volume can be used for security (making sure that even if stuff is missed by a wipe, it is inaccessible to an intruder), but it mainly is used as a separate filesystem for isolation reasons. Should some compromised Web browser add-on fill up the filesystem or try to corrupt it (like a script that just makes directories until all inodes are used), the worst that would need done is a format of that volume.

For remote security, using different web browsers in different sandboxes, or even instances of the same web browser in different spaces helps with separation of content -- something that takes over the browser that is doing banking transactions won't be able to take over the browser that is used for viewing pr0n and slurp up the pr0n subscription IDs and passwords.

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35818752)

Thanx for the help, buddy!

I've just gone through all those steps so my mom doesn't find the pictures of girls with penises in their, um, mouths and privates.

Heh, 'scuse me...I'm getting a woody.

heh

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817038)

Chrome already has "incognito mode," so I'm not sure what more you could want from a browser if there is any concern about privacy.

They all have a version of this feature. Safari started it all off with their Private Browsing back in 2005. Three and a half years later Chrome 1.0 gave us Incognito mode, IE8 then include the InPrivate Browsing. Firefox 3.5 also has Private Browsing while Opera 10.5 has Private Tab / Private Window.

Why would you want to have both systems? Well, why not. Frankly, I don't think you can have too many features to protect your privacy online. This new header is more of a directive to the server not to track the user. Think of it as Incognito Mode for the web server. Whether you trust the web companies to abide by it is left for the reader to decide.

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817720)

If Web browsers were engineered to value privacy, they would have some way of masking fonts and other identifying info. Even with privacy browsing, one can use EFF's panopticlick to find out that in most cases, one's browser is unique, either due to the fonts used, the OS and browser, or a distinct combination of the above. I have yet to find a browser that obfuscates this info in a good manner.

Until this is done, advertisers still can track on this information.

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (1)

sglewis100 (916818) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817830)

Chrome already has "incognito mode," so I'm not sure what more you could want from a browser if there is any concern about privacy.

Plenty! And Safari already had it's Private Browsing feature (where that idea in Chrome came from). In those modes, cookies are not saved past the current session, browser history isn't saved, your downloads history isn't preserved, etc. For me, I like those things, but my need for cookies is limited to things like Slashdot recognizing me so I am logged in all the time. I don't need ad tracking.

Re:Chrome has a privacy mode (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35818890)

If you can't think of what more someone could want for privacy, then you haven't done any research. "Incognito Mode" is about client-side privacy, like cookies and browsing history. "Do Not Track" allows users to declare that their activities and other information shouldn't be tracked by online services. It requires the participation of advertisers and other vendors, and though none are compliant yet (and it's very telling that Google is non-commital), it's a step in the right direction.

Disabling third-party cookies? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35816750)

Do any of these "Do Not Track" buttons in browsers actually do anything useful, like disable third-party cookies, or does it just amount to an altogether useless "pretty please!" plea to the oh-so-ethical tracking/advertising industry? If the latter, then aren't these fancy "Do Not Track" buttons actually WORSE than nothing since they'll give ignorant users a completely phoney sense of security.

Re:Disabling third-party cookies? (2)

DMiax (915735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35816906)

You are right that it is a plea. However if it becomes prominent this can be used as a legal way of opting out from being tracked. advertisers will have no excuse to track people against their will. They won't be able to setup their own incredibly hard opt-out system that no one ever uses. It is a way to close a loophole of some laws.

Re:legal way to opt out (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817282)

I'm pondering ways to designate my unique set of clicks to be a copyrighted work. Then we can let those beautiful new CopyTerror laws in a tasty case of the Law of Unexpected Consequences.

Actually, I'd really like to see a fight between the **aa and the web tracking industries. Anyone know how much $ value the "4th parties" (not Google) together combine into vs Big Media?

Re:Disabling third-party cookies? (2)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 3 years ago | (#35816950)

IE 9 and Safari both support disabling third-party cookies. Safari does it by default; I'm not sure about IE 9.

The "Do Not Track" option mentioned in the article is an additional header that depends on advertisers honouring it. However, if supported, this mechanism works as a global "opt out" system, where the user does not have to take any action per site.

Google, on the other hand, is trying to promote a mechanism that collects all "Opt-Out" cookies and persists them in a sort of "super cookie." In essence, this mechanism allows advertisers to know which users visited a site and actively opted out of tracking, as opposed to the blanket application of the other method. It is thus a subtler kind of profiling and exploitation, without actual tracking.

          -dZ.

Re:Disabling third-party cookies? (1)

kvothe (2013374) | more than 3 years ago | (#35816964)

I think there have been previous articles on this, but as I recall, it basically just adds a "pretty please don't track me" line to page requests sent by the browser. Individual websites can then decide to actually pay attention to the line if they want. Also, as it is an advanced feature in Firefox that is disabled by default, you could argue that newbies probably wouldn't even know to turn it on. Granted, that's sort of a security through obscurity argument, so ymmv.

Re:Disabling third-party cookies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35816980)

It could useful for legal reasoning as well. If a user has set this header set then they do not consent to any tracking of their session, thus if the service does track them they are breaching the user's privacy (in most jurisdictions). Conversely, if the service requires consent to tracking for the request to be fulfilled and the user has this header set, it can deny the request.

Re:Disabling third-party cookies? (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35818894)

Your right, why should Google implement such a feature in Chrome when they know they are just going to ignore it ? If only there were some way they could convince themselves.

Re:Disabling third-party cookies? (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819692)

They could start by disabling the HTTP Referrer header.

I think most people are completely unaware that they are being tracked by it.

Re:Disabling third-party cookies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820024)

Of course it does something; a standards compliant server MUST NOT send any packages with the evil bit set in response to a request with an OPT-OUT header.
In addition, a web site MAY have an accessible privacy policy in a more legible format than 10 pages of legalese.

Nice idea, but worthless in practice (2)

pla (258480) | more than 3 years ago | (#35816790)

Y'know, while it pleases me to see all the major browsers implementing this, and even having some shred of FTC support, it still doesn't amount to a kernel of corn in a mountain of turd for one simple reason...

Namely, the real abusers of our privacy don't give a damn about what we want. And don't think that only includes the likes of Ralsky - Every single company that thinks they can get away with harvesting your data by using a "third party affiliate" or offshore host, will do whatever they can get away with.

We have one, and only one, means of maintaining our privacy online - Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. Filter your response headers, never use your real name, address, phone number, or even your real dog's name as the answer to a site's security questions.

Re:Nice idea, but worthless in practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817322)

Namely, the real abusers of our privacy don't give a damn about what we want. And don't think that only includes the likes of Ralsky - Every single company that thinks they can get away with harvesting your data by using a "third party affiliate" or offshore host, will do whatever they can get away with.

Oh so you get to decide how much is too much tracking?

I don't want Google/Facebook/Amazon snooping around on me. Do you think the FTC has any sway?

Re:Nice idea, but worthless in practice (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817352)

Every single company that thinks they can get away with harvesting your data by using a "third party affiliate" or offshore host, will do whatever they can get away with.

And, the governments will happily buy it from those 3rd parties as well since it lets them get around any restrictions on them actually gathering it themselves -- I seem to recall a story a couple of years ago where the CIA did exactly that to get around some legalities around domestic spying. Because, if it's capitalism it can't be violating the intent of the law.

Governments that don't care about the legalities will just harvest it themselves.

Re:Nice idea, but worthless in practice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817368)

I use my dog's name as the answer to a site's security questions. But if you ever come visit, you'll find that my dog is yellow, has feathers and often shouts "Polly wants a cracker!".

Re:Nice idea, but worthless in practice (1)

tycoex (1832784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819736)

So the answer to all your security questions is "Polly"?

I'm glad it's optional (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35816792)

You see, I like to go and visit porn sites and then Evangelical Christian sites and then pot legalization sites and then pro-gay marriage sites and then back.

I'm hoping the social conservatives will see and think, "Hey! Our flock likes gay marriage, porn and pot. We better get behind the legalization of pot or we'll lose our worshipers!"

Or they'll think I'm just Republican Congressman.

That's what I tell myself anyway. ..

Chrome already supports "Don't be evil" (1)

billrp (1530055) | more than 3 years ago | (#35816842)

I'm sure there are ways for sites to be in compliance with the no-tracking feature, but they will still track you.

Re:Chrome already supports "Don't be evil" (3, Informative)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817000)

Actually, Chrome supports "Don't be (too) evil": It uses a "super cookie" to persist opt-out cookies. That allows subtle tracking (since the user has to actively opt out of sites, implying that he visited them) without actually tracking you, as you suggested.

Safari, Mozilla, and IE9 support a blanket "do not track me" header, that gives away no information about your browsing, other than the fact that you do not want to be tracked.

        -dZ.

i develop for browsers (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35816850)

so i have ie, firefox, chrome, safari, and opera always installed on every one of my machines (work/ mobile/ home)

sometimes i'll randomly launch browsers just to get a feel for the user experience ("___ is not your default browser, would like to make..." ad infinitum). i'm sure if slashdot data mined the HTTP_USER_AGENT server variable attached to user circletimessquare they'd see an odd 5 piece pie chart

but after reading this post, i foresee the chrome pie piece experiencing a significant decrease in size

c'mon google, what the fuck

and this is why competition works. if only ie dominated, as in years past, there's be little or no pressure to introduce this feature. honest fair competition (in a well-regulated marketplace) means the consumer wins

one final aside: i love opera. that's one scrappy browser. they always seem to have the most exotic features that leave your mind excited rather than eye-rolling (like bit torrent support baked in). supporting opera, unfortunately, is an afterthought in most browser development projects i've been attached to, and in the past, it suffered from the same hijinks as ie6/7 which left you angry at it and resentful (not so much anymore). but i've always tried to support opera. and its not just sentimental love for the underdog, opera is a really good browser, you should try it (no i'm not affiliated with them in any way). i believe its hot in nordic countries (which makes sense, since its from there) and eastern europe

Re:i develop for browsers (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817026)

Their core business is online advertising. You really expect them to make a browser that limits online advertising? Before they start losing market share to browsers that do have it?

Agreed, 110% - Opera, rocks... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817236)

"i love opera. that's one scrappy browser. they always seem to have the most exotic features that leave your mind excited rather than eye-rolling... opera is a really good browser, you should try it (no i'm not affiliated with them in any way). i believe its hot in nordic countries (which makes sense, since its from there) and eastern europe" - by circletimessquare (444983) on Thursday April 14, @09:11AM (#35816850) Homepage

Good way to put it, not exactly how I would have, but your point's definitely there, and agreed upon (from myself @ least). It's also HUGE in the "mobile browser" world too, & on consoles etc./et al as well.

Vs. the competition? Well - Opera's got:

---

1.) Features other browsers either outright COPIED (ala "imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery")

2.) Native/Built-in features that other browsers have to get 3rd party "add-ons" for to equal functionality Opera has built-in, natively, minus the overheads of browser add-ons...

3.) PLUS, for years, Opera's been called "the fastest browser on the planet", & it still holds true (though Chrome gives it a run for its money nowadays/lately, & IE + FF are no slouches lately either)

4.) Lastly, Opera's been CONSISTENTLY, over time, the browser that shows nearly always 0 unpatched known vulnerabilities on the security end of things... more consistently than ALL the others (IE/FF/Chrome)!

---

And, there you are...

APK

P.S.=> ALSO, that last part, on security, has held true, & over a longer period than Opera's competition!

(Though for the past month now? ALL of the "major webbrowsers" showed 0 vulnerabilities @ SECUNIA.COM, except Chrome turned up another 2 days ago though -> http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34532/?task=advisories [secunia.com] )) ... apk

Re:Agreed, 110% - Opera, rocks... apk (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35818340)

mod parent up: informative/ insightful

Re:Agreed, 110% - Opera, rocks... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35818454)

Mod APK down, by definition. He's a troll, best known for "How to Respond When People Threaten to Sue You on the Web". (Yes, he's the "people".)

Re:Agreed, 110% - Opera, rocks... apk (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35818518)

this is some sort of subculture war i'm not familiar with. link? (work safe link please)

Upon request, here are your links (and quotes) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35818714)

Don't pay any attention to my "AC Stalker" here I am replying to: It's TomHudson trolling me as AC:

He's telling others to "mod me down", because that's ALL he has vs. facts & figures etc. that I generally use - It's just another TomHudson anonymous reply attack on myself!

---

So, does TomHudson do that? Well, take a read, & you tell me:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544 [slashdot.org]

"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal

(Oh, & it's kind of tough to hide yourself as AC tomhudson, when your own words give you & your pals away as doing that to myself, as shown in that URL above)...

---

Especially when you're a KNOWN MALWARE MAKER, who worked for the russians doing so, tomhudson:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1699526&cid=32716798 [slashdot.org]

"Do like I did - work for the Russians for a few years" - by tomhudson (43916) on Monday June 28 2010, @11:09AM (#32716798) Homepage Journal

---

Making malware, as shown here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2051634&cid=35693892 [slashdot.org]

"As I've pointed out elsewhere, it is a trivial exercise to design a C&C that can bypass the whole HOSTS thing" - by tomhudson (43916) on Friday April 01, @11:30AM (#35688796) Homepage

---

And, when TomHudson was asked to let us try this alleged "app" of his that has 50,000 users? He ran. Of course he won't let ANYONE 'try his botnet', at least not willingly, and sure, I can see his having "50,000 users"... more like 50k enslaved unwitting & unknowing users is more like it, via his botnets...!

APK

Re:Upon request, here are your links (and quotes) (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35818864)

i feel like i'm sitting in starbucks witnessing a fistfight spill over from the s&m club next door

I agree but I'm not the one doing the ac trolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35818906)

LOL, don't blame you... but, that's how it is (& I am NOT the one trolling others as AC replies, when the one doing it (tomhudson is) has a registered account here (I do not, no need))

APK

Re:Agreed, 110% - Opera, rocks... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35818980)

http://www.google.com/search?q=alexander%20peter%20kowalski [google.com] ... wouldn't it be great to have the first Google result for your name show what a psychotic jackass you are? "All bark, no bite"... and a few fries short of a happy meal, too. It's just too bad that the .apk file extension has polluted the results for his initials.

(For further reading, http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1003910&p=19122373#p19122373 [arstechnica.com] - I am surprised, though, that someone who's been around as long as you isn't already familiar with him.)

Also, he changes his IP address so that he can spam Slashdot and circumvent the automatic postcount ban (slow down cowboy/you must wait a little bit).

P.S. I do owe APK thanks, though, for posting those links - I'd never seen the TomHudson journal entry that was linked to in one of the threads.

Some corrections to your b.s. ac troll... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35819308)

"wouldn't it be great to have the first Google result for your name show what a psychotic jackass you are? "All bark, no bite" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14, @12:23PM (#35818980)

It is, because I showed the PLANET how that's being done unjustly to guys like myself & by a fool named THOR SCHMUCK!

I wrote an app for a fellow forums user, in good faith, because he couldn't get older Apache servers on Windows to run as a service (invisbly on a Windows rig in those days)... so, being the "good neighbor"? I did it for he, as its only 2 lines of code in C/C++ "spawn calls" type work!

That happens, & a LOT (in freeware/shareware) like Nirsoft's Nir Sofer (guy makes excellent powertools smallish utilities) & even Dr. Mark Russinovich (even vs. the COREFLOOD worm, his work is being used BY SAID WORM):

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/251492/trojan_lurks_waiting_steal_admin_passwords/?fp=2&fpid=1 [idg.com.au]

"But the Coreflood hackers have been successful, thanks in part to a Microsoft program called PsExec, which was written to help system administrators run legitimate software on computers across their networks.

For a widespread infection, attackers must first compromise a system on the network by tricking the user into downloading their program. Then, when a system administrator logs onto that desktop machine -- to perform routine maintenance, for example -- the malicious software tries to run PsExec and install malware on all other systems on the network.

Often the technique succeeds."

---

I feel bad for Dr. Russinovich here, I really do - THAT? That's NOT a first for he... he designed his app TO HELP SYSADMINS, not harm others... I know the feeling!

HOWEVER - That won't work with the single app I wrote that gets misused... it's NOT SCRIPTABLE is why! & I DESIGNED IT THAT WAY, ON PURPOSE! Just in case someone got "bright ideas", so I omitted argv/argc capabilities from it (never put them in, you have to use it manually & select folders + apps to use it, VISUALLY/INTERACTIVELY!)

Plus, my app has been lowered to ZERO THREAT LEVELS by the folks that are the source of such libel on myself!

(Because the app, like many others, is like a gun, & guns don't kill folks - OTHER PEOPLE DO!)

That occurred (zero threat level), because I went @ CA, on the advice of an attorney (John Lowe of Hiscock & Barclay) & took their 21 point test for removal - My app did not violate a SINGLE 1 OF THEIR 21 POINT TEST is why!

Funniest part here though, is that "ping" is the same (can be used for pinging, or pings of death (in the past, most new OS have patched that much).

Also, CA (the source of all of that)? They're disreputable (busted for accounting fraud) - OR, does THIS link I showed here before, which was + 5 INFORMATIVE rated no less here:

---

COMPUTER ASSOCIATES BUSTED FOR ACCOUNTING FRAUD:

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1884922&cid=34350102 [slashdot.org]

---

NOT prove that much? Sure does!

Thanks - Because you're only allowing me to expose my false accusers publicly once again for the slime they are... thank you!

---

"... and a few fries short of a happy meal, too. It's just too bad that the .apk file extension has polluted the results for his initials."" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14, @12:23PM (#35818980)

When you produce:

---

1.) PHD in Psychiatry to your name/credit

2.) Proof of your license to practice it professionally

3.) Years-to-Decades of doing so per #3 above

4.) A formal examination of myself in professional environs as to my "mental state"

---

?

Then, & ONLY THEN, perhaps maybe, would others lend your libel of myself ANY credence. Till then? Well - you're just another "/. SiDeWaLk PsYcHoAnALySt"...

---

"(For further reading, http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php [arstechnica.com] ?" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14, @12:23PM (#35818980)

Jeremy Reimer of arstechnica was caught IMPERSONATING ME on his own forums, and admitted it at Windows IT Pro (and on his forums before he moved them to another hosting provider & started it again)... so, you think arstechnica doesn't pull that kind of crap? See this:

"Anyway the "APK" registered here is just an affectionate clone of the original. In fact I prefer him to the original." - Jeremy Reimer - March 25, 2005

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28685295 [slashdot.org]

and here also (Windows IT Pro magazine forums):

http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/internals-and-architecture/the-memory-optimization-hoax#feedbackAnchor [windowsitpro.com]

---

"I am surprised, though, that someone who's been around as long as you isn't already familiar with him.)" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14, @12:23PM (#35818980)

He's not familiar with libellous scumbags like yourself is all, & now he is, and sees the truth of it from myself instead of your b.s. libel of myself.

Small wonder you post as AC... you HAVE to hide yourself. You're TRULY the "anonymous coward" (stress on the latter word).

---

"Also, he changes his IP address so that he can spam Slashdot and circumvent the automatic postcount ban (slow down cowboy/you must wait a little bit)." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14, @12:23PM (#35818980)

Nice try, but... that's NOT how I do it, completely @ least, lol... & sorry for my being intelligent enough to circumvent an unfair restriction on us AC posters...

(Now, you show me a WRITTEN RULE here that says I cannot beat these unfair restrictions? I'll be HAPPY to abide by it! Thing is though, you can't... you've tried that b.s. before, & you failed to produce evidence of such a rule! There isn't one...)

---

"P.S. I do owe APK thanks, though, for posting those links - I'd never seen the TomHudson journal entry that was linked to in one of the threads." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14, @12:23PM (#35818980)

Tom, I already provided proof of how you AC stalk & troll me in my other posts here... do you *think* you're fooling anyone here?

Guess again.

APK

Re:Some corrections to your b.s. ac troll... apk (1)

MichaelKristopeit405 (1990180) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819494)

you're an idiot.

Re:Some corrections to your b.s. ac troll... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35819570)

A well documented idiot though. His having proofs available to back him up against libel was impressive and convincing enough to vindicate him here vs. libellous ac stalker trolls publicly. However you with your 5,000 or more registered luser accounts here Mike? Please.

Re:Some corrections to your b.s. ac troll... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820680)

(An anonymous coward suddenly pops out of the woodwork.) "Hi! I'm not APK! But I totally agree with what he says! Also, I mysteriously misspell libelous the same way he does!" (The anonymous coward promptly disappears.)

Yeah, I'd be willing to bet that your IP is from the same subnet as the rest of "apk's" posts.

"well documented idiot" indeed. The fact is very well-documented.

Talk about stupid: Pot calling the kettle black? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35820758)

See subject line and what you posted as (ac). Man, are you dumb. Ask the mods here if the ip is the same then. I am posting as ac myself in response to you. Also to this from you quoted next below? Please. give us a break with your "pot calling the kettle black" crap:

"(An anonymous coward suddenly pops out of the woodwork.)" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14, @02:55PM (#35820680)

Notice the 'by-line' signature on YOUR post? Gosh - looks like ac to me! Thus, lol, documentation's not needed to show you're an idiot, with your "pot calling the kettle black" tactics (poor as they are, lol). This reply of mine does the job, due to your idiocy and yes, stupidity, easily for me.

TomHudson: A malware maker doing more AC trolling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35818690)

Don't pay any attention to my "AC Stalker" here I am replying to: It's TomHudson trolling me as AC:

He's telling others to "mod me down", because that's ALL he has vs. facts & figures etc. that I generally use - It's just another TomHudson anonymous reply attack on myself!

---

So, does TomHudson do that? Well, take a read, & you tell me:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544 [slashdot.org]

"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal

(Oh, & it's kind of tough to hide yourself as AC tomhudson, when your own words give you & your pals away as doing that to myself, as shown in that URL above)...

---

Especially when you're a KNOWN MALWARE MAKER, who worked for the russians doing so, tomhudson:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1699526&cid=32716798 [slashdot.org]

"Do like I did - work for the Russians for a few years" - by tomhudson (43916) on Monday June 28 2010, @11:09AM (#32716798) Homepage Journal

---

Making malware, as shown here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2051634&cid=35693892 [slashdot.org]

"As I've pointed out elsewhere, it is a trivial exercise to design a C&C that can bypass the whole HOSTS thing" - by tomhudson (43916) on Friday April 01, @11:30AM (#35688796) Homepage

---

And, when TomHudson was asked to let us try this alleged "app" of his that has 50,000 users? He ran. Of course he won't let ANYONE 'try his botnet', at least not willingly, and sure, I can see his having "50,000 users"... more like 50k enslaved unwitting & unknowing users is more like it, via his botnets...

APK

Thanks, but give credit where it's due (Opera)... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35818630)

"mod parent up: informative/ insightful" - by circletimessquare (444983) on Thursday April 14, @11:32AM (#35818340) Homepage

Thanks, but see my subject-line above: It's Opera that deserves the credit here... not myself!

APK

P.S.=> Oh, also: Don't pay any attention to my "AC Stalker" here who replied to you here:

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2083778&cid=35818454 [slashdot.org]

Who's telling others to "mod me down", because that's ALL he has vs. facts & figures etc. that I generally use - It's just another TomHudson anonymous reply attack on myself! So, does TomHudson do that? Well, take a read, & you tell me:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544 [slashdot.org]

"Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme". by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal

(Oh, & it's kind of tough to hide yourself as AC tomhudson, when your own words give you & your pals away as doing that to myself, as shown in that URL above)...

Especially when you're a KNOWN MALWARE MAKER, who worked for the russians doing so, tomhudson:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1699526&cid=32716798 [slashdot.org]

"Do like I did - work for the Russians for a few years" - by tomhudson (43916) on Monday June 28 2010, @11:09AM (#32716798) Homepage Journal

Making malware, as shown here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2051634&cid=35693892 [slashdot.org]

"As I've pointed out elsewhere, it is a trivial exercise to design a C&C that can bypass the whole HOSTS thing" - by tomhudson (43916) on Friday April 01, @11:30AM (#35688796) Homepage

& a stalking ac troll poster as shown above as well... apk

Re:Thanks, but give credit where it's due (Opera). (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35818882)

don't worry, i have no party in this fistfight. happy browsing and happy brawling

Fair enough, & likewise... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35819002)

"don't worry, i have no party in this fistfight." - by circletimessquare (444983) on Thursday April 14, @12:16PM (#35818882) Homepage

Excellent, and I only posted that data (as to who is ac stalker trolling me, tomhudson) because you asked for such data in your other replies here (I leave no stone unturned, especially when others ask for data).

---

"happy browsing" - by circletimessquare (444983) on Thursday April 14, @12:16PM (#35818882) Homepage

Per my subject-line above? Likewise (on Opera!)...

---

"and happy brawling" - by circletimessquare (444983) on Thursday April 14, @12:16PM (#35818882) Homepage

A brawl or fistfight is ONLY possible between equals... & this troll, tomhudson, who LITERALLY stalks & trolls me as AC here (especially when he has a registered user account here & my last posts to you show he does this to me)? Is FAR from that...

No - It's more an "ANNIHILATION", especially when I put up proofs as I did as to his "motivations" for stalking & trolling me as AC, and what he REALLY DOES (malware & botnet maker)...

APK

Re:Agreed, 110% - Opera, rocks... apk (1)

raynet (51803) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820258)

Opera is cool, unfortunately it is currently broken on OSX, I cannot access any sites that have IPV6 AAAA-record cause Opera tries to use IPV6 even though I have disabled IPV6. Hoping that next version fixes this, I can stop launching Safari to access those few sites that won't open now on Opera.

Re:i develop for browsers (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817582)

Yeah. I love Chrome, but if Google doesn't bite the bullet and respect users' wishes for even a flag request for privacy... they can fuck off. I'll switch to Firefox in a heartbeat.

If you like CHROME, try Chromium instead... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817646)

http://www.chromium.org/Home [chromium.org]

APK

P.S.=>

"Yeah. I love Chrome, but if Google doesn't bite the bullet and respect users' wishes for even a flag request for privacy... they can fuck off." - by osgeek (239988) on Thursday April 14, @10:19AM (#35817582) Homepage

Because I do NOT believe that the folks that built CHROMIUM adhere to the same stuff you're bitching about (rightfully so, & imo too) that Google's CHROME does... apk

Re:i develop for browsers (1)

twollamalove (935519) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817910)

Opera is my primary browser and it is head and shoulders above Firefox in mose areas. The one area (and it's an important one to me) that Firefox is consistently the best is privacy settings (and IE seems to be next, but I don't actually trust it). You need one setting in Firefox and the browser saves nothing. It's excellent. I wish Opera would catch up in that area.

Re:i develop for browsers (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35818598)

What about private tabs. They don't keep a history and they don't seem to save any cookies, and they don't even know about cookies I've already save (i.e. if I navigate to slashdot in a private tab I'm not logged in).

Re:i develop for browsers (1)

vgerclover (1186893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35818108)

so i have ie, firefox, chrome, safari, and opera always installed on every one of my machines (work/ mobile/ home)

sometimes i'll randomly launch browsers just to get a feel for the user experience ("___ is not your default browser, would like to make..." ad infinitum).

Can't you bother to check the don't ask me again checkbox?

but after reading this post, i foresee the chrome pie piece experiencing a significant decrease in size

I think that you are overestimating the knowledge and privacy concerns that the average user has.

Re:i develop for browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35818192)

but i've always tried to support opera. and its not just sentimental love for the underdog, opera is a really good browser, you should try it (no i'm not affiliated with them in any way). i believe its hot in nordic countries (which makes sense, since its from there) and eastern europe

Opera is not hot in Nordic countries, if you by Nordic countries mean Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland.

Norway (5.6% Opera users according to Statcounter, most of them probably work at Opera Software ASA or affiliated companies), Iceland (2.4% Opera users), Denmark (1.2% Opera users) and Sweden (1.4% Opera users). Those countries are Microsoft's vision of paradise. You can't buy a computer without Windows (and although you have theoretically a legal right to it in Sweden and Denmark (EU regulations), you can't get a refund for an OS that you get with your computer and don't need) and "everybody" is afraid to use any software that haven't been blessed by Microsoft. Companies and private users do everything Microsoft tell them to do, including buying a full set of new soft- and hardware every other year. Finns are more software vendor agnostic, but as they don't use Microsoft Windows, they don't really need Opera either (2.4%) (I know Opera run on a lot of OS, Opera was my most main browser 1996-2005, but on a more stable and secure (then Windows) platform, where there is less need of Operas robustness and security, why use a browser that most web-services don't support, yes it is more responsive and have a superior UI, but that's not enough, you have to be able to use some web-sites that are purposely designed not to work with (like my bank, until a year ago, or my internet providers webmail-system (they use advanced browser sniffing to make sure that Opera won't work))).

Compare that to Operas market share in Europe (4.3%) or EU (something like 6-8%, Statcounter don't provide a sum for me and I'm to lazy to calculate one myself).

As for the former East block countries. They use a lot of "old" computers with Windows 95, 98 and XP installed. Opera is the only modern browser that work well on "old" versions of Windows.

Re:i develop for browsers (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35818428)

informative comment, thanks. my impression of opera as nordic centric i guess is historical. and i double-checked, your comment is wikipedia-approved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(web_browser) [wikipedia.org]

As of August 2010 Opera has a 2.37% of worldwide usage share of web browsers, according to Net Applications.[109]
The browser has seen more success in Eastern Europe, including about 47% market share in 2009 in Georgia, 43% in Ukraine, 36% in Russia, and 8-11% in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic.[110]
In September 2009, Opera broke its previous download records when Opera 10 was released and was recorded to be downloaded 10 million times during the first week of release.[111]

new slogan: "opera: made by norwegians, used by georgians"

an aside: doesn't opera have a feature where you can "cloak" it? that is, report a false HTTP_USER_AGENT?

ah, yes, it's a simple menu selection, and you can surf as a wolf hiding in sheep's clothing:

http://www.davidtan.org/how-to-change-opera-user-agent-string/ [davidtan.org]

Re: Chrome is not the product *YOU* are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35819750)

c'mon google, what the fuck

and this is why competition works.

Google does not provide Chrome for your use. Google created a data gathering and capturing utility called Chrome so that its' product - YOU can be sold and resold to advertisers.

Competition does not matter in this scenario. Google is a virtual monopoly as a data agregator.

Re: Chrome is not the product *YOU* are (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820222)

this is the problem with negativity and cynicism. assuming you really think like this, and accept it, you are accepting slavery

i'm a free man. as such, i am positive and optimistic. which is the cause and which is the effect?

it is my assertion that the attitude creates the reality. the proof of your cynicism is the life you lead... which is because of your cynicism. your cynicism is a cause, not an effect. your psychological makeup predisposes you to a fate of slavery or freedom. freedom is the realm of the optimist

i just look at the way you view the world you live in, and shake my head. because its simply not the same world i live in. then i look to my world, and am cheerful again

life is emergent phenomena. it is not a static unyielding truth. you create your fate, actively, you are not the victim of it. well, at least this truth applies to me and other free men

Google Analytics (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35816854)

Since Google Analytics seems to be on about every website in the known world these days, it hardly surprises me that Google would be reluctant to support this. Wouldn't this feature essentially cripple it?

Re:Google Analytics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35816872)

That assumes that most people will enable the DNT feature. My bet is that 95% of consumers will leave the default setting ("go ahead and track everything I do").

Re:Google Analytics (3, Interesting)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817058)

You'd be surprised to know that Safari disables third-party cookies by default, with the presumption that they are used mostly by advertisers. This is irrespective of the legitimate uses of third-party cookies, however few they may be.

I can clearly imagine Apple enabling the "Do Not Track" feature by default, seeing that there is no other context for it than to protect the user from tracking by advertisers.

        -dZ.

Re:Google Analytics (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817370)

That is a good point. I never understood why Microsoft didn't release IE9 with massive ad blocking capabilities. They aren't in the ad-based revenue world, and have a genuine advantage and can build something that benefits customers and harms Google's grip on the internet. And really, the same can be applied to Apple as well... I know they released a "Reader" program that eliminates ads... enabling DNT by default would be another good choice for them. Instead it feels like a lot of times they just play catch-up with Google, and forget that their business models create alternate strategies for them.

Re:Google Analytics (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819056)

Google's reluctance more likely has to due with the fact that, as an online advertiser, their core business relies on tracking user data for context-sensitive ad placement.

Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35816932)

Any browser that supports addons/plugins/extensions has the ability to support addons like Ghostery which blocks tracking cookies - which Chrome does. Building the functionality to "declare" that you don't want to be tracked thus becomes entirely unnecessary, and solves the problems that will arise in the future when it's discovered that these websites acknowledge your declaration, but use their tracking cookies anyways. I don't know about you guys, but this FTC-backed privacy system still leaves the decision to honor privacy and security in the hands of these websites, when it should remain in the hands of the users.

even an atharist monkey could track us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35816942)

tracks of our fears anyway. spying on us is also fear based. as is hurting/killing any one of us, as there is no other real reason to do so.

Should be opt in, not opt out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817010)

I really cannot believe the sincerity of people or organisations who ask me to add my details to a list in order for my details not to be added to, err, other lists.

Same goes for those schemes for people to opt out of having salesman phone them or the opt out of advertising through the post.

The government is not on your side. They need big business to generate the funds which produce the taxes which fund the government - and the salary of your representatives. Those representatives are not interested in your petty privacy. They are interested in spending money on grand projects.

That is why this is just a silly gesture which they know will be circumvented if it works at all.

what "do not track" SHOULD mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817092)

Why isn't this a single place in the browser that:

* Disables tracking javascripts from web pages such as google-analytics
* Blocks web bugs
* Disables loading of tracking ads
* Spoofs the referrer to be the root of the domain being visited
* Changes your default search engine off google and onto one that doesn't log your searches
* And so on?

That would actually be a _meaningful_ form of "do not track". Seriously - this should be built into every modern browser with a single preference checkbox. Then it wouldn't take so much knowledge to have REAL privacy and many more people would have it.

Re:what "do not track" SHOULD mean (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817332)

* Blocks web bugs

What?

* Disables loading of tracking ads

How? Magic? How do you work out which ads are tracking?

* Spoofs the referrer to be the root of the domain being visited

Possible yes. Useful? Not really.

* Changes your default search engine off google and onto one that doesn't log your searches

All search engines log searches, its how they get feedback.

Re:what "do not track" SHOULD mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817394)

> What?

?? "Block web bugs" is only three words. I don't know how to make it any more clear.

> How? Magic? How do you work out which ads are tracking?

Then block them all.

> All search engines log searches, its how they get feedback.

False. The one I use says "We don't track you!". It isn't the only such one.

If you want real privacy, the tools to obtain it on the client side with or without permission from the server side are available. It's what "do not track" should mean.

Re:what "do not track" SHOULD mean (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817768)

Blocking all advertisments is kinda unethical.

Certain websites offer you free content, don't try anything nasty, and the least you can do is try to let them scrape some money which you're not paying for.

Yes I agree that when you end up with giant half-page "POP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN" flash ads its kinda overdoing it...

Web bugs are again hard to find to remove. Blacklisting doesn't really work for long.

Re:what "do not track" SHOULD mean (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819112)

Blocking all advertisments is kinda unethical.

Certain websites offer you free content, don't try anything nasty, and the least you can do is try to let them scrape some money which you're not paying for.

Yes I agree that when you end up with giant half-page "POP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN" flash ads its kinda overdoing it...

Web bugs are again hard to find to remove. Blacklisting doesn't really work for long.

It's not unethical. They can't force you to look at ads or pay attention to them and they can't force you to load them at all. Do you consider going to the bathroom during a commercial break to be unethical ?

Re:what "do not track" SHOULD mean (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819670)

You can't use the same metaphor because the tv station gets paid for showing the commerical break, regardless of how many people are watching it or urinating or whatever - and getting ratings for those is difficult, so the advertiser never gets to know.

If of course there was some magical technology available for everyone which would remove all commercials, then I would expect my favourite channel to suffer for it, and would be unethical.

Re:what "do not track" SHOULD mean (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820190)

If you follow that reasoning it would be unethical to not click on every advertisement a website serves up because they are most likely pay-per-click. In fact you are advocating killing the DVR, which also allows you to skip ads. This isn't new of course ABC [adjab.com] tried the same thing a while back.

Re:what "do not track" SHOULD mean (1)

Lunaritian (2018246) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817344)

You forgot the button that makes you unable to write on Facebook while drunk.

Re:what "do not track" SHOULD mean (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35819130)

If you can still post to Facebook then you aren't drunk enough.

Google movie script? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817194)

Why do I get the feeling this is going to be like a version of "127 Hours" [wikipedia.org] where Google is going to have to decide whether to cut off its own arm to escape?

But wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35817416)

Safari has had an "Enable Private Browsing" feature for some time now. Is there really any difference between this and a "Do-Not-Track" feature?

Malicious bit next? (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817434)

Wonder when they are going to implement malicious bit in TCP-IP.

Re:Malicious bit next? (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35817550)

They already almost have.

Think about the idea of individual page elements of a webpage needing security certificates. If a page contains elements that are not certified as "original copyright holder" then any use of that page would be malicious. (Pending new law from congress discussing "unauthorized data serving" even when not copied per se (ignoring cache)).

Involved Closely? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35818200)

"Google states that they 'will continue to be involved closely' with industry discussions about compliance with the do-not-track system."

Of course that's so they know what they need to do to make it not work.

Related news... (0)

Asten (674521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35818264)

In related news, Apple claims they invented the magical concept of "do-not-track".

So How's That Do Not Spam List Working For Ya? (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#35818528)

Yes, Spam legislation did SO much good. /sarcasm All it did was move it off shore. While advertising may not move off shore, the fact is that you can't legislate tracking, and you can't solve it with "Please please don't track me" buttons. Oh, so you can get adsense to stop following you? Big whoop. If a website wants, they can each have their own tracking software, and sell to highest bidder.

And you keep pushing and pushing, and sites like Facebook will start throwing up warnings about how crappy your experience will be unless you disable. Don't disable? Then they'll feed you a site with no Javascript that looks like it survived the Geocities shutdown.

When will users, companies, and politicians learn... they wouldn't KNOW so much about you if you didn't TELL them in the first place! Other than your IP, every other form of information is one you actively give or can proactively prevent. And there are always services like Tor if your IP being known freaks you out...

Sorry, but I'm really tired of this shit. People freak out because someone stole a list of email addresses, oOoOo... I stole a white pages phone book, should someone call the FBI? I'm going to start comparing the 30yr old + generation, of which I'm a part of, the new Sen. Stevens generation. I'm all for privacy, but this whiny do not track button BS isn't going to save ONE person from real ID theft. It's another "the internet is a bunch of tubes" make believe idea.

Re:So How's That Do Not Spam List Working For Ya? (1)

dwightk (415372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35820198)

This isn't to stop identity theft, it is to keep advertisers from tracking you.

People actually USE Safari? (1)

Zoidbot (1194453) | more than 3 years ago | (#35818782)

Why? When Opera has such a better browser for Windows, Max, Linux?

Do-Not-Track is silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35819548)

First of all, unless everyone moves to impression-based advertising, tracking users is pretty fundamental to having free access to most web sites. The business model is based around providing free content in exchange for displaying advertising. When you click on that advertisement, web sites need to be able to track who to give the money too. A magic "do not track me" HTTP header is either going to be ignored in this context, or would result in the transformation of the web into an oligarchy of paywalled content. I strongly prefer to read online news for free and see a few advertisements thrown in than to pay $20/month for news subscriptions.

If everyone had to actually respect the "do not track" option, then I would expect to see every web site come up with a warning that they need to disable the "do not track" option in order for their site to work. Google's proposal is way more realistic. It is like the difference between turning off JavaScript globally, or selectively blocking JavaScripts from running based on which web site they are from.

         

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...