Beta
×

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!

Mozilla Issues Do-Not-Track Guide For Advertisers

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the stop-following-me dept.

Mozilla 74

angry tapir writes "Mozilla has issued a do not track field guide to encourage advertisers and publishers to implement do-not-track (DNT) functionality. The guide contains tutorials, case studies and sample code to illustrate how companies use the DNT technology. Mozilla aims to inspire developers, publishers and advertisers to adopt DNT and wants to put the control over Internet tracking into the hands of users. The browser maker wants to put a stop to behavioral targeting and pervasive tracking on the Web. The guide can be found here (PDF)."

cancel ×

74 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350050)

Rather than such a complex system, why not have the people who want to be tracked volunteer?
They could download a browser app that transmits their browsing history to advertisers.
If there is no one who wants to be tracked, then the problem solves itself.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (3, Insightful)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350140)

But how will they screw us in this case ? Absolutely unacceptable. If you do not want to be tracked you should take measures beyond your technical capabilities to do so. Companies has right to make a profit out of you! Now I'll Cite few laws of free market and free speech, so you would understand why you shouldn't get a free ride of them, do you get me now ?

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350262)

Some people don't care if they are tracked or not, most probably don't.

But, more importantly, how many people honestly think that these companies are not following 'do not track' rules because of incompetence or inability? They are not following them because they don't want to. This release by Mozilla is funny. It is akin to (while being mugged), telling the person mugging you, "mugging is wrong, you can also make money by getting a job!" If you thing that's going to work, you're an idiot.

Here's a better solution. Find companies that violate these rules. Set up something that blacklists their DNS entries, and either add that to DNS, or add a secondary tool that you can put on your computer, that will also query that list when making DNS requests.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37351300)

Find companies that violate these rules.

So that would be Mozilla, and other browser makers who allow this to happen by making the browsers so easily provide personal information.

Every bit of information users can use to track you with the exception of your IP address is controlled by the browser.

Cookies
Cache
User Agent
Plugins
HTTP-Accepts

All of these methods and the others used to track people are a direct result of browser functionality. Of course, it won't be anywhere nearly as functional without these things, but thats another story. Mozilla doesn't want to fix the problem. 'The Problem' is the reason they exist. Without tracking, Google would be far less profitable and would have far less incentive to pay Mozilla anything. If Mozilla actually fixed the problem, they'd cut off their food supply.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37352224)

Mozilla doesn't want to fix the problem. 'The Problem' is the reason they exist. Without tracking, Google would be far less profitable and would have far less incentive to pay Mozilla anything. If Mozilla actually fixed the problem, they'd cut off their food supply.

Mozilla, Apple, and Opera have all publicly pledged to implement DNT functionality. It's Google who has so far refused to implement DNT in Chrome [wired.com] because ads are Google's core business.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 3 years ago | (#37360118)

Yes because going to:
    http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/ [google.com]
and clicking on a button labelled "Opt out" is too damn hard.

Of course according to you Google wouldn't do this since it is their core business, right?

DNT is a nuclear weapon for honest companies, and a joke to be ignored for dishonest ones (it's like the famous Evil Bit). What is really needed is European-style privacy regulations (i.e. with actual teeth for bad actors), and a fine-grained permissions model on Websites (like iOS or Android has for apps).

Did that work for you? (1)

0ld_d0g (923931) | more than 3 years ago | (#37368558)

Whats weird is I installed the adwords & google analytics optout addons for chrome. It messes up the rendering on certain pages (e.g. acid3 test)

http://acid3.acidtests.org/ [acidtests.org]

This is what I get : http://i.imgur.com/HvY5U.png [imgur.com]

Re:Did that work for you? (1)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 3 years ago | (#37407358)

Acid is quite finicky but that is indeed quite strange. I'll attempt to report an issue.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#37352376)

So that would be Mozilla, and other browser makers who allow this to happen by making the browsers so easily provide personal information.

Every bit of information users can use to track you with the exception of your IP address is controlled by the browser.

Cookies
Cache
User Agent
Plugins
HTTP-Accepts

Yeah, it would be nice if turning on DNT also set all those to the defaults regardless of what everyone else tries to set it. That way you've stated your request, and fingerprinting is a lot harder (pretty much IP address only) since it appears as a clean browser install.

Of course, it's all a moot point once we get to IPv6 and can identify individual machines again (at least within a short period of time - who changes their IP address every second?). Stupid NAT making it possible to have multiple machines hiding behind a single IP.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#37353344)

There are a lot of non-tracking purposes for which these are useful/necessary. Things that people aren't going to want to do without. They'd rather be tracked than do without.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37360294)

Without tracking, Google would be far less profitable

So if tracking is the main reason for profitability, why does Facebook make 1/10 of what Google does? Facebook has more page views and better tracking data (full profiles, friends, all comments and likes, and just as much page tracking via the like button even when unclicked).

Some day people will realize that advertisers do not give a shit who you are. All they care about is whether you may be interested in buying something which they sell, and avoiding you if you aren't. The current page content and immediate search terms suffice perfectly well for that. Most of the rest are display ads ("Drink Coke!") which also don't care who you are.

What is left after those other categories are bottom-dwelling "hyper-targeted" ads ("28 and single?! Click here!"). Those hardly forms the bulk of ad income, except perhaps for a few social-media companies.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#37352130)

Find companies that violate these rules.

Wouldn't that be all of them? Certainly those whom you most want to block will always be those who won't take any notice of a polite request to stop. Seems to me that the only useful measure is to refuse all traffic from obnoxious servers, e.g. by hosts file blocking. The drawback is that you pretty much only build up that kind of blacklist the hard way, unless you are prepared to use someone else's list...

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 3 years ago | (#37352842)

and if there are legitimate sites on that domain and the server is compromised and sending spam? Stop thinking rofl, it's already done for email somewhat effectively and it doesn't stop shit cause keyboard key combinations are infinite and most work as domain names.

I think there should be an audit system, the problem is its hard to tell between advertisers and spammers, with the former being legal and the latter illegal, I never signed up for viagra to be delivered to my email, I don't half mind the newegg daily deals, from an IT standpoint looking at the spam server and the newegg server, you can't tell what's what without knowing the background of both companies. So audit them: "where did you get these email addresses?" off a hijacked email list? great, cease or desist. From paying customers? Carry on.

The problem is most of these are overseas in under developed countries with little to no internet laws, thus block DNS, IP, audits, all fall out of the picture cause the US has no jurisdiction. We can take steps like blacklist the DNS, but then it just changes. The ultimate solution lies with user education and to stop clicking on spam, if people didn't click on it and make it profitable nobody would do it...

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#37353400)

Actually it's a good thing for those compromised sites - they'll find out they are compromised sooner, and users won't be put at risk by traveling to the site. That just means a process needs to be put in place to get off the blacklist. Maybe add IP address as well as host names - same logic.

I'm not sure what the hell this rofl thinking you are talking about is.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350364)

Because they're going to track you either way. Mozilla needs to spend less time on this, and more time on implementing technical countermeasures to tracking.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350588)

Ghostery
NoScript
Adblock plus

Done.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#37361078)

The real problem is.

If you really don't want to be tracked, you need to:
- disable javascript
- disable cookies
- disable the browsercache
- remove all headers like Accept, User-Agent, Accept-Language, Accept-Encoding
- disable all plugins (like flash)
- use a different IP-address each time you connect to the same website

And if you've done all that, you'll be the only one who is doing that. Thus you can be tracked again ;-)

Good luck with that.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

thsths (31372) | more than 3 years ago | (#37353582)

That is the big question. In Europe the law says you are only allowed to track people who agree to tracking. So current industry practice is to "presume" an implicit acknowledgement that free services on the internet are financed by ads and tracking.

Once the user sets a "do not track" flag, that (already flimsy) argument falls down completely, and advertisers have to stop tracking you. It is legally quite clear, and I would not be surprised to see legal proceedings before the end of the year. Of course the user has little (if any) damages, so there is no motivation to become active, but there is also the possibility of action from competitors under anti-competitive regulations.

In any case things are bound to change.

Re:Does anyone want to be tracked? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37354928)

Doesn't matter either way, this Do Not Track system is just an attempt to enter a gentleman's agreement with scumbags.

Naive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350110)

It's naive to think that this will have any impact. Toothless ideals like this never work in the real world. They just give a false sense of security. In fact, it's much like the recent and ongoing debacle with CAs and SSL certificates. They're great theoretical concepts that both totally fall apart when subjected to the dynamics of business and the real world.

Good on Mozilla! (2, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350122)

I think it's nice Mozilla is doing the right thing and leading by example. Now that they have explained HOW to do this, we'll know that everyone not doing it simply decided not to.

Re:Good on Mozilla! (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350274)

[...] we'll know that everyone not doing it simply decided not to.

You mean, that wasn't obvious before?

Re:Good on Mozilla! (1)

mfh (56) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350502)

It remains obvious, however now there is no excuse!

Re:Good on Mozilla! (1)

ldconfig (1339877) | more than 3 years ago | (#37355008)

Isn't our browsing history unique content? Its just as creative as a rap song. I think our history should be protected under the DMCA just like music and if the rich (and law enforcement) want to collect it then they should have to ask permission and pay us a cut of the profit. My 4 cents.

Re:Good on Mozilla! (1)

mfh (56) | more than 3 years ago | (#37358484)

And we should be able to conscript MPAA/RIAA to do our dirty work for us also. Wouldn't it be funny to watch RIAA sue Microsoft and Google for $200000 per browser history record?

pretty confused about this (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350124)

Here [mozilla.org] is Mozilla's page on it. It appears that it just sends a "don't track me, pls" HTTP header if you enable it.

If only a handful of people use it, I can imagine that larger and more-responsible advertisers might interpret that as an opt-out. I can't imagine them agreeing if it gets more pervasive, though. Many currently have opt-out methods, but they're deliberately a bit harder to use and less automatic. I would imagine that at the least, they'll try to set up some requirement for additional confirmation of the opt-out.

And of course many advertisers will just ignore it: voluntary implementation of opt-out functionality will never catch the worst offenders.

Re:pretty confused about this (3, Interesting)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350180)

I'm not confused at all about this: This is a joke. It gives a false sense of having accomplished something, which arguable makes everything worse.

In Germany, it's illegal to track personally identifiable info about your visitors you don't ABSOLUTELY need, much less keep it around (it can be argued you need to keep e.g. IP addresses it for a few days in case to be able to block attackers etc., but there isn't a lot of grey area). Sure, that still needs to be enforced, but at least that actually means something. Kinda like making rape illegal, instead of printing "please don't rape me" t-shirts. Geez.

Re:pretty confused about this (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350234)

It makes it an awful lot harder for shills to argue that an opt out system would be too complicated or impossible.

(in re your analogy, "No means No" and so forth were real actual outreach programs...)

Re:pretty confused about this (2)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 3 years ago | (#37351110)

But that's the point, it shouldn't matter if opting out is too complicated! If it's to complicated for these clowns, they should stop tracking altogether, or go to jail otherwise. Maybe they can write a book in jail about how complicated it all is, or try to rust the bars with their salty tears. Fuck these people, don't give them an inch. Somehow they got the idea that putting on a suit and making a bit of dirty money makes them human, and that idea needs to be stopped before it does further damage. You don't work together with organized crime to find a solution that works for everybody, you smoke them out. Or you fail to do that and suffer the consequences.

Re:pretty confused about this (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#37356704)

Sure sure, never mind the reality where they have more and better lobbyists than you do and the law is currently on their side.

Re:pretty confused about this (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 3 years ago | (#37356934)

That actually was a rant about me very much minding that reality :P

Re:pretty confused about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350232)

As long as the larger advertisers go along with this, that will be the bulk of tracking blocked. When it comes to tracking, the ones with the most data are the most dangerous.

Re:pretty confused about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350740)

What they will use DNT headers for is to add yet more details to browser fingerprinting depending on whenever the header is sent or not, would surprise me if they didn't already do that.

Re:it just sends a "don't track me, pls" HTTP head (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#37351366)

I got this one!

Let's make a Premium list of everyone who sends "Don't Track Me Please" headers! They are advanced users ages 21-59!

Not Likely... (4, Insightful)

realsilly (186931) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350128)

I would suspect that many advertisers will ignore the document because their cash cow is advertising. They want to be invasive. They want me the average consumer to see what they have to offer. What incentive is there for them to lose potential advertising revenue?

On a personal level I feel advertising agencies have been allow too many liberties and have invaded the lives of consumers way too much. I can't stand them. I'd like to see advertisements go away. But they won't, and even telling them "Don't Want" is not going to work. Look how well that worked for the Do Not Call registry. I still receive calls and every time I say...."I'm on the do not call list...." I don't even get the courtesy from them to remove my number they hang up faster than I can request to be removed from their list. This gives them the lame excuse "the customer did not ask to be removed....". They ignore the Do Not Call list.

Based on the above scenario, what makes me believe that an Ad company would follow the Do Not Track requests?

Re:Not Likely... (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350252)

A number of countries have laws, so if it got known that a company is ignoring the Do Not Track, they will get fined.

A leak to wikileaks ? Or something, I don't know.

Re:Not Likely... (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350466)

I'd like to see advertisements go away.

Advertising as a whole is different than targeted advertising, which is what this Do Not Track stuff refers to. Take away advertising as a whole and prepare for a lot more websites to be behind a paywall.

Re:Not Likely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350478)

Well, if they can't respect my wishes, then why should I respect theirs? I don't remember ever giving my consent to be tracked or to be served ads. At best, a website will complain I'm not seeing their ads only _after_ I've already blocked them. At worst, they will just silently try to bypass my anti-tracking policies by abusing flash storage and browser caches. As long as advertisers do not respect my explicitly stated choice, I will block them completely to the best of my software's abilities.
I realize many websites rely on ad revenue in exchange for content, but I do not feel obliged to give up my privacy when they start tracking me without even asking for permission. If the website requests of me to either allow them to track me and unblock ads or to leave, then I would honor that. Otherwise, I'm going to save myself all the annoying flashing ads and loud sounds meant to startle me and draw attention.

Re:Not Likely... (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350546)

"What incentive is there for them?"

Ad Block if they don't.

Telling all my friends, if they continue to ignore.

Send all my friends the Ad Block install file, if...

Re:Not Likely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350768)

I would suspect that many advertisers will ignore the document because their cash cow is advertising. They want to be invasive...

You're correct. The Human mind doesn't see as much wrongdoing when they are gaining something from the act or idea, either. In other words, if someone's making $10,000,000 a year by the killing of cows, they're not very likely to feel that killing cows is "wrong". :)

Re:Not Likely... (1)

Rossman (593924) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350776)

If you don't want to see ads, just block them. It's trivial to do, either via your hosts file or using a browser add-on/plugin.

If you don't believe the Do Not Track requests will be honoured than you certainly have options available to you!

Re:Not Likely... (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37352250)

I would suspect that many advertisers will ignore the document because their cash cow is advertising. They want to be invasive.

Google, for example [wired.com] , who is the only major browser vendor not to pledge support for implementing DNT. Gee, I wonder why.

Re:Not Likely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37360078)

How much does Apple pay you to sit around all day bashing Google?

Re:Not Likely... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37368522)

Why do you like giant multi-billion dollar advertising companies? Are you a google employee?

Success (1)

Viceice (462967) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350204)

Right. You're asking marketers to give up what is essentially gold to them?

This is going to be about as successful as setting a flag on en e-mail address and expecting spammers to not spam it.

Mozilla creating privacy concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350214)

I think it's problematic that Firefox users are given a vague illusion that they can actually prevent being tracked by setting an option in their browser settings. I know that "tell sites not to track me" is not the same as "prevent sites from tracking me", but does your parents?

Won't someone think of the parents!

This is the FIRST step (1)

esme (17526) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350226)

What I think a lot of people are missing is that these are the necessary first steps in the process of stopping tracking:

1. Provide technical infrastructure for users to express their prefs.
2. Provide advertisers the tools to see those prefs, how to handle them, etc.
3. A few ethical advertisers implement those tools and demonstrate that it's feasible.
4. Make it illegal to ignore the prefs.
5. FTC comes down like a ton of bricks on anybody who tracks people who opted out.

Re:This is the FIRST step (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350382)

What I think a lot of people are missing is that these are the necessary first steps in the process of stopping tracking:

1. Provide technical infrastructure for users to express their prefs.
2. Provide advertisers the tools to see those prefs, how to handle them, etc.
3. A few ethical advertisers implement those tools and demonstrate that it's feasible.
4. Make it illegal to ignore the prefs.
5. FTC comes down like a ton of bricks on anybody who tracks people who opted out.

Given the current political climate, and the corporate ownership of our political system, nobody is going to pay attention to the sensible 5-step system you describe until you add.

6. ..Profit!

Remember, FTC is government. In fact, by definition, the FTC is BIG GOVERNMENT. And no matter how important to our future if its BIG GOVERNMENT and it's not military contractors and not putting money into the pockets of corporations, it ain't a-gonna happen.

Re:This is the FIRST step (1)

Pokermike (896718) | more than 3 years ago | (#37351528)

More like:

1. Provide technical infrastructure for users to express their prefs.
2. Provide advertisers the tools to see those prefs, how to handle them, etc.
3. A few ethical advertisers implement those tools and demonstrate that it's feasible.
4. Make it illegal to ignore the prefs.

5. FTC grants waivers to ISPs and others (e.g. Google/Bing) under pressure from lobbyists and law enforcement under "protect the children" acts
6. Profit: ISPs and waived entities sell their legally obtained tracking data

Re:This is the FIRST step (1)

hamsjael (997085) | more than 3 years ago | (#37353646)

Exactly!! this is the only way to give government an avenue to regulate this. All us ./'rs proberbly know about "add block plus", "better privacy" "ghostery" and so on. Thats fine, but if user protection shall be based in any kind of legality it has to go the way of the law. The initiative from mozilla is essentially an API for the law to protect the people from the vultures yours is the first sensible comment on this story, strange you only got "2"

Brilliant (3)

Pokermike (896718) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350298)

Wow, a voluntary do not track program -- that'll catch on. The only reason the Do Not Call List worked out ok was because there were penalties for not using it and even then there was abuse [cbsnews.com] and numerous work arounds and loopholes.

Re:Brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37351246)

The idea is that eventually it will be backed up by legislation.

Re:Brilliant (1)

Pokermike (896718) | more than 3 years ago | (#37351372)

I'd prefer a technological solution to a legislative one. Legislative solutions will always lag and enforcement will be yet another waste my tax dollars. Not to mention how will US legislation, for example, help people being tracked by non-US based tracking companies.

PS (1)

Pokermike (896718) | more than 3 years ago | (#37351420)

Not to mention, the US government has little incentive to curb tracking. They'll give waivers to ISPs and Google, etc. for "protect the children" and "stop terrorism" reasons. They're already trying to force them to KEEP that data for longer and make it easier for law enforcement to get.

Re:Brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37354054)

The point here, I think, is to lay the ground-work for a Do-Not-Track law that can use this header as a cue that advertisers must acknowledge.

Without this first step, the lobbies could argue that just a law would be impossible to implement, however, with this feature added, the law is made obviously not impossible.

From (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350330)

From the writers of the 'do not bite guide' for dogs?

Its a first step (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350376)

Sure its voluntary, but its a first step. Now there is no real excuse for tracking people except wanting to.

TFA says that there are more users who turned on 'do not track' than are using adblock, which means there are lots of people who don't want to be tracked. What the next step will be depends, since we now know that tracking them isn't an 'accident because I was unable to'.

Maybe an addon will create a blacklist so you know what to avoid, maybe some country will make it illegal to track people who don't want to be tracked (Probably not in the US, but I'm sure the EU might). Everything is in place now.

I have a good name for it. (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350408)

I have a good name for this addition to the http header. Let's call it the "Pretty please addition" , or the "Puwwleeeeeeeeeeeeeese extension".

Advertisers have been shown to not obey something as basic as a user's request to delete cookies. What makes you think any advertiser in the world is going to obey this without legislation followed by enforcement?

Re:I have a good name for it. (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350514)

I'd say that'll be the next step. The EU already tried something like that in the past - and now there's no excuse that its "Too difficult to do" or "Users don't want it".

I have a better guide (1)

Crock23A (1124275) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350500)

Install 2 add-ons. No Script and Ad Block Plus. No Script really opened my eyes to how much crap is tied to some web pages and also how google and facebook know every move I make.

Re:I have a better guide (1)

Zapotek (1032314) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350660)

Add Ghostery too:

Ghostery sees the invisible web - tags, web bugs, pixels and beacons. Ghostery tracks the trackers and gives you a roll-call of the ad networks, behavioral data providers, web publishers, and other companies interested in your activity.

After showing you who's tracking you, Ghostery also gives you a chance to learn more about each company it identifies. How they describe themselves, a link to their privacy policies, and a sampling of pages where we've found them are just a click away.

Ghostery allows you to block scripts from companies that you don't trust, delete local shared objects, and even block images and iframes. Ghostery puts your web privacy back in your hands.

Accountability (1)

michael1221988 (1613671) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350598)

Honestly everyone knows that advertisers won't listen to these requests, but it does lay a framework for law to require corporations to listen to these request. Before this was in place a corporation could simply say, "I didn't know he wanted to be tracked"

idiotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350612)

How's that "do not spam" thing working out, by the way?

This just gives the dumber people a sense that they CAN avoid tracking just by setting some browser option that sends a "please?" header.

The ONLY way to prevent tracking is through technical measures: not loading ads, not running javascript, and to be more extreme, browsing through an anonymizing proxy. Anyone not doing those things WILL be tracked, and some stupid header isn't going to change that simple fact.

Amusing captcha: "Bridge".

...and in other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350648)

Mothers Against Drunk Driving issues a Do-Not-Drink guide TO THE ENTIRE WORLD.

mod 04 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37350706)

about 700 uSers [goat.cx]

Should be as popular as (1)

doug141 (863552) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350720)

a guide on how foxes should properly care for henhouses.

That reminds me... (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350750)

... I need to pick up a "please do not rob me" sign on my way home today.

Never mind privacy (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#37350972)

Apparently Mozilla has also issued a "Do Not Print" guide for Firefox. I had to use Chrome to print some web pages recently. Firefox=blank, Chrome=get everything. ???

Huh? (1)

grikdog (697841) | more than 3 years ago | (#37351280)

What's wrong with issuing a browser that doesn't track in the first place? Then users could "Opt In" by downloading the pink version instead of the friendly orange version?

"Guidelines" are CYA, not serious concern about user privacy.

As an advertiser, here's my response (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37351460)

The company I work for does marketing of sorts. We try to pretend we don't, but thats really what it is.

We do track users, but not in any way that is passed along to our customers as personally identifiable. We track aggregates like 'X number of people say it, Y number of people clicked on it, Z number of people bought it'. I'm probably the only person currently that could even type sale Z to event X within our system, their is no internal code to do so. Even then, the only way I could tie it back to an individual (rather than an IP address) is if they ALSO happened to be one of our customers. This is intentional. If I don't write it or log it, it can't be abused until someone does.

My first thought to this however is ...

Hahahaha go fuck yourself, no way I'm implementing that. None of my competition will, why the fuck would I? If they don't want me to track them, dont' randomly load shit from my website, and accept/send me cookies and other personally identifiable information. We've already cut ourselves off from tracking information because, well its just wrong. I'm not writing more code ... to deal with a flag that says 'ignore this information I'm sending you!' ... rather than just NOT FUCKING SENDING ME THE INFORMATION IN THE FIRST GOD DAMN PLACE.

Sorry Mozilla, you can kindly go fuck yourselves, this is yet another example of how completely disconnected from reality you are. You want me to not track you? Fix your fucking browser so it doesn't default to making itself trackable as all hell. Your browser is leaking information, not my problem. (Its common to all browsers mind you, but still not my problem)

Information IS money, always has been, the web didn't create this situation, and never has someone saying 'hey, don't track me!' stopped anyone from remembering such information. Computers have just made it far easier to correlate.

Re:As an advertiser, here's my response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37358816)

>Sorry Mozilla, you can kindly go fuck yourselves, this is yet another example of how completely disconnected from reality you are. You want me to not track you? Fix your fucking browser so it doesn't default to making itself trackable as all hell. Your browser is leaking information, not my problem. (Its common to all browsers mind you, but still not my problem)

Your statement: "You left your doors open, don't fucking complain to me if I steal your shit."

My response: "When we shoot you as a thief, will you still be whining like this?"

Not Going Away (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 3 years ago | (#37354578)

The browser maker wants to put a stop to behavioral targeting and pervasive tracking on the Web.

I want to be a fairy princess, and to live in a castle on the moon!

Does Mozilla have any idea how much money this stuff is worth? Let me put it into perspective: I did a two month test run of some hard-core personalization code on a tiny little backwater advertising system. It ran on one tiny little out-of-the-way placement of that tiny little backwater advertising system. The projected annual change in profit for that one little placement on that one little system? Six point five million dollars per year.

I'd put the annual take at a company like Google or Facebook in the billions, easily. That is why Facebook's initial reaction to Heise's two-click-like [slashdot.org] from a week or two ago was "YOU CAN'T DO THAT WE'RE SHUTTING YOU DOWN IT'S A VIOLATION OF OUR ToS AHHHHH NOOOO NOOO NNOOOOO NOOOO NOOOOOOOO!!!!"

There are three ways behavioral targeting could be put back in the bottle:
1. It becomes uncommon for companies to have a CEO who behaves as though he has an antisocial personality disorder.
2. Onion routing (like Tor) with advanced request sanitizing becomes the standard way to browse the web.
3. A law or other coercive force threatens greater risk*cost for tracking than the profit from behavioral analysis.

As a bonus, here's a dose of reality: Neither option 1 nor option 2 will happen. Here's one more: The U.S. government is getting paid an awful lot of money -- both legitimately, through taxes, and legally-but-illegitimately, through campaign contributions -- to not write and enforce a law to stop it.

So, unless you want to go join Anonymous or the nutjobs calling for revolution; get used to it. This is your role in society now.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?