×

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!

W3C Proposes Unified "Do Not Track" Privacy Standard

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the federal-legislation-due-in-2013 dept.

Privacy 93

In his first submission, kierny writes "A W3C working group is crafting two standards, due out by summer 2012, to enable consumers to opt out of online tracking. Numerous big players are involved, including Google, Facebook, IBM, Mozilla, Microsoft, plus the Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Federal Trade Commission. The first standard is Tracking Preference Expression, 'to define a standard for a how a browser can tell a website that a user wants more privacy,' says W3C working group co-chairman Dr. Matthias Schunter of IBM Research. 'So you send a signal, and you get a response from the website which tells you that the request has been honored.' The second standard, meanwhile, is the Tracking Compliance and Scope Specification, which details how websites should comply with Do Not Track preferences. But, don't expect Do Not Track to be active by default."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

93 comments

Do Not Track (0)

Dondoet (2199592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38069784)

I for one, welcome our 'Do Not Track' privacy overlords.

Re:Do Not Track (0)

flying squirrels (2496274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38069804)

el oh rhetorical el

Wrong prioroties (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070106)

Not tracking should be the default, and you should have to opt in to tracking.

Re:Wrong prioroties (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38071542)

Problem with this approach is that no one will respect it then, as it will present massive losses to advertisers to respect it.

Re:Wrong prioroties (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38072554)

So you prosecute and fine the companies that do it until the losses from the fines exceed the profits from the tracking.

Re:Wrong prioroties (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38073124)

How do you "prosecute and fine" companies that don't adhere to standards? If we did that, microsoft would've been bankrupt for IE6.

Standards become standards not because they are mandated, but because they are both mandated and ACCEPTED. Purely mandated, unaccepted standards end up not used at all.

Re:Wrong prioroties (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38075608)

Its a web standard, not a law. You set an incredibly dangerous precedent by letting w3c standards dictate law-- what if one day they set a standard that all browsers must conform to IE9's behavior?

Re:Wrong prioroties (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38072974)

as it will present massive losses to advertisers to respect it.

It depends on how opt-in is marketed.

It can represent massive SAVINGS to advertisers, since they won't be wasting time and energy on tracking people. So they'll go to the easier and cheaper "cost per view" model, where their ads are displayed w/o any tracking code. Of course, the companies who SELL the invasive advertising models (google, yahoo, microsoft, facebook) won't be happy, since that means less ad revenue. Tough!

Without user tracking and the whole "serve up relevant ads" mess, instead of them (and everyone else) trying to target the same "perfect customer", advertisers could actually pick up new customers, since ads w/o targeting and tracking will be seen by a wider audience.

The problem is that the companies selling targeted advertising won't be able to make as much money on general display ads, so of course they will continue to push invading your privacy - and it's obvious that the W3C is infested with these cockroaches.

Honestly, if facebook, google, yahoo, and bing disappeared tomorrow, life would not end. So you'd have to use your own email (or if you wanted webmail, find someone with a domain who's willing to host webmail for you for a couple of bucks). Big deal. Search? People actually found stuff on their own or through friends before google, you know ... :-)

Re:Wrong prioroties (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38073158)

You seem to think that people who do that stuff for a living are just as stupid about it as average person is about targeted marketing. I have bad news for you - people in that industry work for a living making tap water look worth buying at prices higher then gasoline just because they bottled it and ran an advertising campaign based on nothing but images with no concrete promises.

You seriously expect people like that to buy their own bullshit? They are the masters of it, and will see through your bullshit arguments in a second, understanding them for what they really represent - a massive decline in average consumers that will be seeing their ads, just as you conclude yourself.

And there's no way in hell they'll agree to that.

Re:Wrong prioroties (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38073768)

You seem to think that people who do that stuff for a living are just as stupid about it as average person is about targeted marketing.

I don't confuse evil with stupid :-)

And it doesn't matter in the long run, because eventually both the laws and people's expectations will change, and targeted advertising will die.

understanding them for what they really represent - a massive decline in average consumers that will be seeing their ads, just as you conclude yourself.

That's happening anyway. As more browsers get ad-blocking, as more people use proxies that filter ads out, as more people become "ad-blind" (and yes, it's real - what advertisers fail to understand is the biological basis for vision. Those ads are mostly filtered out by the optic nerve, same as most of what hits the retina - they never register on the brain, so they don't "build brand presence.").

When's the last time you clicked on an ad? I've unblocked ads on slashdot (I find it interesting to see what's being pushed, so I actually LOOK for the ads - they're good for a laugh), and I've clicked on a total of ONE, from IBM. And I think that was something like 4 years ago ...

Other sites? None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Aucune. "Click on zee ad? Pourquoi, c'est la merde, eet ees the sh*t, non?"

They're going to have to go back to simple display ads, no targeting, but I expect them to embrace that about as much as politicians will embrace a law that makes them liable for lying, or perps a bill that holds them financially and criminally responsible for fraudulently-marketed CDOs and SIVs.

Re:Wrong prioroties (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38073526)

The advertisers can't "lose" money by respecting a do-not-track policy. They can only "not make" money by doing so.

Re:Wrong prioroties (1)

zoloto (586738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38075012)

So why don't advertisers track the way they used to? Just because it's available to spy on people doesn't mean it's right or legal to do so.

Re:Wrong prioroties (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38075976)

But it is. Whatever is not forbidden is allowed. That is one of the base tenets of our (Western) justice system. Law is waaaaay behind on this topic, as most of the ways to track people didn't exist a decade ago.

Re:Wrong prioroties (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38075598)

Enable it by default and noone will opt in. If noone opts in, noone will adopt or honor the standard (or else most websites will move to a paywall approach).

It HAS to be disabled by default.

Re:Wrong prioroties (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38079586)

or else most websites will move to a paywall approach

No - most websites would revert to display ads that don't include tracking. Those that can't sustain themselves on that will just thin the herd, making the rest more viable.

Re:Do Not Reload (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38069898)

Speaking of standard Web features... I finally got around to switching to Firefox 7.x... and I'm wondering what the joke is.

Where the fuck is the "Reload/Refresh" button?! Even if you customize the toolbars... it's not there. WTF?! Is reloading a page so offensive or something? Granted, CTRL-R still works but for how long? I mean shit, I can put Bookmarks, Zoom-In/Zoom-Out, Cut, Paste, Tab Groups, all sorts of shit on the toolbar but no option for a reload button.

If this is a joke it's not funny. Can somebody please take the crack pipe away from the developers? "Hey let's fuck with our users by removing a basic feature essential to anyone using any sort of discussion forum!" "Heh yeah, that'll fix them, those fuckers!" Seriously. WTF?

Re:Do Not Reload (1)

TheInsaneSicilian (134631) | more than 2 years ago | (#38069978)

It's there, it's always there, at the end of the website address line... the classic "reload" symbol... unless I'm misunderstanding what you're griping about not having access to?

Re:Do Not Reload (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38069984)

Assuming that you are actually wondering where they put it and aren't just bitching about the lack of customizability: they moved it to the URL bar.

Circled in red in the pic: http://i.imgur.com/Oz6mS.png [imgur.com]

Re:Do Not Reload (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38069986)

It's the semi-circle with the arrow on the right of the address bar.

Re:Do Not Reload (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 2 years ago | (#38069994)

Look at the end of the location bar. When the refresh/reload button is immediately after the location bar it becomes part of the location bar. If you customize the toolbar and move it somewhere else it will revert to it's previous appearance.

Re:Do Not Reload (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38071028)

But I have to agree with the guy that couldn't find it that the new design is seriously dumbshit. Usability 101: if your average grandma can't even figure the shit out without a manual? You got a problem. its a fricking browser, not the backend of a DB, it should be simple and intuitive, like FF WAS for years. I will give them credit for one thing though, they did help me move my users over to Comodo Dragon. When all the buttons and the classic file/edit/view disappeared my users went "WTF?" and when i told them they better get used to pretty constant changes and updates from FF they were like "Surely YOU know something better right?" So thanks FF devs, you're the Vista of browsers!

As for TFA? Frankly I don't blame them for not making it default as it makes them money, all that data lets them better target ads which actually work on the little old lady crowd I was surprised to find out. Me personally the closest I've ever come to buying something because of an ad is Amazon with their little 'people that looked at X also bought Y" bit or steam with their "Hey just FYI but we got a sale on", but the LOLs actually respond to those targeted ads and shop their little butts off. So as long as their is some way for us geeks and our families to turn it off its okay by me, more options in this case better than none.

Re:Do Not Reload (1)

Tim99 (984437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070010)

It's the pretty little partial circle with an arrow head at the end of the address bar.

When you hover your cursor over it it shows a tool-tip "Reload current page"

Just like Safari.

Re:Do Not Reload (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070730)

slashdot helpdesk at your service

Re:Do Not Reload (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#38073588)

I'm on Firefox 11. Guess what? There's a "Refresh" icon right there! It's on the right side of the address bar. Not to the right of the address bar, it's ON the address bar, on the right side.

And, seeing that I'm on FF 11 - WTF took you so long to download and install FF7? Is your internet THAT FUCKING SLOW?!?!?! Maybe you don't really need a browser, but a higher antenna for your television.

Noble ambition (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38069808)

Raise your hand if you think it will be fully adopted by Facebook.

And Microsoft will probably come up with their own standard...

Re:Noble ambition (5, Funny)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38069832)

If they invite Microsoft to the ISO open document standardization meetings, it's only fair they invite Facebook and Google to the privacy standardization meetings.

Re:Noble ambition (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38069872)

If they invite Microsoft to the ISO open document standardization meetings, it's only fair they invite Facebook and Google to the privacy standardization meetings.

Participation is no guarantee of full adoption. We've seen it happen before.

Re:Noble ambition (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070078)

Or IE will follow that 100%. ... but Windows will track it and watch what you type instead and report it to Bing :-)

Re:Noble ambition (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38073286)

Whoosh. Forget adoption, it'll require Herculean effort to keep the usual suspects from torpedoing the whole proposition.

Watch for the press release: "We were working with the committee to make sure our customers needs were met and that a balance was found between privacy and ease-of-use but ultimately we felt we had to abandon the effort because the standard was unworkable (because of our poison-pill amendment, bwa ha ha!)"

Re:Noble ambition (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070062)

You obviously don't realize that it was Microsoft who first submitted a Do Not Track proposal to the W3C, earlier this year.

http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/microsoft-submits-tracking-protection-proposal-w3c-022511
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/SUBM-web-tracking-protection-20110224/

The Microsoft specification/method doesn't require to cooperation of publishers and doesn't rely on the behaving properly - unlike the methods implemented in Firefox and Chrome do, which therefore are practically useless against ill-behaving advertisers who do not honor the user's wishes regarding privacy.

Re:Noble ambition (3, Insightful)

lvxferre (2470098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070572)

It's interesting to Microsoft to kill tracking, since it's what their biggest rival - Google - uses for generate revenue, and MS's income comes from their [dubious quality] OS and office suite.

Re:Noble ambition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38071200)

while that might be true regarding their motivations, their method is still superior. let's not argue about motivations.

Re:Noble ambition (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38072588)

Exactly. In this case, Microsoft's incentives line up with the general public's, so there's a good chance that their standard will do what we actually want. FireFox and Chrome get most of their funding from Google, so they've got an incentive to appear to be acting in consumers' favour without actually making tracking too difficult. Apple probably just doesn't care - Safari isn't a profit centre for them.

Re:Noble ambition (1)

ygslash (893445) | more than 2 years ago | (#38071322)

The Microsoft specification/method doesn't require to cooperation of publishers and doesn't rely on the behaving properly - unlike the methods implemented in Firefox and Chrome do, which therefore are practically useless against ill-behaving advertisers who do not honor the user's wishes regarding privacy.

It doesn't really matter. Either way, in the best case they'll spend a huge amount of man hours on developing a standard, everyone will adopt it, and no one will use it. Because you won't get the functionality you need on any significant site when Do-Not-Track is enabled.

Excellent (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38069816)

Friends, I assume you've seen the recent poll which has Dr. Paul emerging as the frontrunner in Iowa? If there was ever a time to start canvassing and phone banking for Dr. Paul, that time is now!

Let's get moving on the Phone from Home program and Christmas Vacation with Ron Paul. http://phone.ronpaul2012.com/v/login.php?return_url=%2Fv%2F

Re:Excellent (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070182)

So when did you get a lobotomy?

Yea, this will . . . . (3, Insightful)

bogidu (300637) | more than 2 years ago | (#38069836)

work as well as that 'Do Not Call' list.

Re:Yea, this will . . . . (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38069874)

And this has affiliations with those damn "pinko commie open source fascists" (I've heard this). It's doomed.

Re:Yea, this will . . . . (5, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070956)

You can't compare the two.

Telemarketers (Debt Collectors are not bound by it) are required to show proof that they checked the number against the list within 14 days of contact. If they cannot, and they made contact, it is a 50k USD fine the last time I checked per infraction .

Of course, the only way the FTC knows about it is complaints. What does the FTC have? Phone records. Everything they need to assess the fine, and they love to do it.

This is completely different, and completely retarded, if it has no such teeth. How does the consumer even know to complain in the first place?

The consumer does not know:

- What information I am storing server side in my databases.
- If I am even processing the privacy requests in the first place. That's all new code. Once that standard is in place I will have to go back to every website I am responsible for and enact the new policies.
- If, and when, I sold the information to 3rd parties.
- If, and when, I was hacked and the information copied. Unless new laws mandate disclosure.
- If, and when, affiliates were provided the information.

It is kind of hard to compare the two together. This new standard puts an awful lot of responsibility on website developers and owners, of which many, are ill equipped to comply with new standards like this immediately. There is a significant percentage that will not even upgrade to a new web server capable of processing the requests.

What about foreign web servers? At least the FTC can nail telemarketers in the US regardless of where the call came from as long as the profit was made in the US.

Re:Yea, this will . . . . (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38072104)

Telemarketers (Debt Collectors are not bound by it) are required to show proof that they checked the number against the list within 14 days of contact. If they cannot, and they made contact, it is a 50k USD fine the last time I checked per infraction .

I had a heated discussion about this the other day (some soulless prick [read:telemarketer] on reddit doing an AMA) and as it turns out, "surveys" and "research questionnaires" are exempt from the DNC list in both the US and the UK. All they have to do is shape the call in the form of some stupid questions and they can advertise to you all they like by cold calling. They also will continue to call unless you say "Please take me off the list" in those exact words and with no variation. "Please stop calling me" will not suffice, and they will call back.

Re:Yea, this will . . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38089774)

Ugh, I *hate* that shit. I don't know which is worse, the "surveys" or the political robocalls (I live in Northern Virginia).

I have a white board next to my phone for messages and family notes. Around Oct 1, it started getting really bad, so I kept a running tally in the bottom corner. I'll probably hit 100 before the next weekend is over. That is ri-goddamn-diculous.

Every single time, if I got a real live person, I say "please take me off of your call list". It does not help. At all.

Can we get one... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38069860)

...for use without a computer?

Re:Can we get one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070290)

Do as I do : Pay everything in cash.

It's about loopholes, adherence and enforcement (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38069894)

Similar issue to do not call. Then politicians exempt themselves and you get swamped with very obnoxious robocalls with fake caller IDs before election day.

And then there are the agencies who just ignore the thing.

And then the enforcement is lax.

Thanks, but I'll use my own tricks too.

Re:It's about loopholes, adherence and enforcement (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38069906)

And then the enforcement is lax.

Enforcement by whom? This is just a standard by W3C, and it is a weak one at that. If you fail to produce compliant HTML, your web page might not render correctly; if you fail to follow this standard, nobody will notice.

Privacy is not something that a standard can guarantee you.

Re:It's about loopholes, adherence and enforcement (1)

mark_elf (2009518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070042)

W3C Police. Sounds good to me.

Re:It's about loopholes, adherence and enforcement (1)

PwnzerDragoon (2014464) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070392)

Wouldn't work. Every time they'd get sent out on a call, they would have to spend three years deciding the most efficient route first.

Re:It's about loopholes, adherence and enforcement (2, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070050)

And then the enforcement is lax.

Enforcement by whom? This is just a standard by W3C, and it is a weak one at that. If you fail to produce compliant HTML, your web page might not render correctly; if you fail to follow this standard, nobody will notice. Privacy is not something that a standard can guarantee you.

I hope this doesn't work out the same way anti-telemarketer devices did prior to the Do-Not-Call List.

Anyone remember those? They used various tones and other tricks to try to convince the telemarketers' auto-dialers that the number was invalid or not in service. How did the telemarketers respond? Did they take the hint that they were not wanted and focus their efforts on people who might be more willing to entertain their sales pitches? No. They interpreted that as "those people must be using those devices because they are unassertive pushovers who have difficulty saying 'no', so if we can reach them we'll REALLY make some sales!"

So they tried to find ways to circumvent those devices and after some time, the calls would get through anyway and I'd have to tell them to piss off myself. One favorite was to sound interested and then ask for their own personal telephone number. When they inevitably refused, I'd say something like "what's wrong, you don't like having strangers bother you at home?" While it's fun to hassle a professional pest (who during that job market could have chosen many other career paths), it was a nuisance that these idiots tried so hard to circumvent your express wishes.

That was with the telephone network which is old technology that most people understand how to use. Is there any reason to think this won't be the case with Internet technology that most users don't have a clue about? It definitely tends to tilt the playing field in favor of the professional assholes. I for one will ignore this standard and probably won't even use it when it becomes supported on all major browsers. Instead, I'll stick to a combination of Adblock Plus, NoScript, cookie management, Redirect Remover, RefControl, a comprehensive hosts file, and several other measures I use.

I mean think about it. Why leave the decision-making to the party that stands to gain from failing to respect my privacy? What goodwill have they shown in the past that suddenly makes them so trustworthy? Since when did the advertising industry suddenly start respecting privacy? I just don't buy it. It's an inherent conflict of interest.

Re:It's about loopholes, adherence and enforcement (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38073038)

One favorite was to sound interested and then ask for their own personal telephone number. When they inevitably refused, I'd say something like "what's wrong, you don't like having strangers bother you at home?"

I played a few of those games too, but ultimately decided it was taking more of my time than I wanted. So instead, as soon as the person went into their pitch, I would just leave the phone off the hook, thereby wasting their time and not mine.

Re:It's about loopholes, adherence and enforcement (1)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | more than 2 years ago | (#38073804)

One favorite was to sound interested and then ask for their own personal telephone number. When they inevitably refused, I'd say something like "what's wrong, you don't like having strangers bother you at home?"

I played a few of those games too, but ultimately decided it was taking more of my time than I wanted. So instead, as soon as the person went into their pitch, I would just leave the phone off the hook, thereby wasting their time and not mine.

I'd play the game with the opening, "Oh he's dead." Which usually draws an immediate silence, and them taking the note to not call that number again.

Fight noncompliance with bad press (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070080)

If a page fails to follow the standard, a compliant browser ought to put a big honkin' open padlock at the top of the page and rat it out. That's what they already do on sites without a verified SSL certificate, right?

Re:It's about loopholes, adherence and enforcement (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070086)

It did say Federal Trade Commission was part of this.

Re:It's about loopholes, adherence and enforcement (2)

adolf (21054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070410)

It did say Federal Trade Commission was part of this.

Did it say which side they're on?

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38076194)

You know, if the DOJ wants to hold that violating the TOS of a website is "knowingly access[ing] a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access," then it might be fun to find out if ignoring the user's Do Not Track settings constitutes a similar violation.

Side note: The CFAA does have civil enforcement provisions that can private individuals can use to sue.

Waste of Bandwidth ? (1)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070038)

While it's nice to think that everyone will adopt software and policies that work as intended, whats to stop a malicious server, who is by definition, malicious, from running a webserver that says "Oh, you don't want me to track you ? Sure pal, no problem." ... then of course, continues to track you ?

Seems to me the lack of validation / verification of published behavior, will just result in more traffic for traffics sake.

What does everyone else think ?

Pre-emptive "What about Apple?" response (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070060)

I cheated and read the article.

Apple is part of the working group (along with Microsoft, Facebook, et. al.); but listing IBM's participation was deemed more important by the submitter, kierny.

Like that will happen (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070070)

It is not like 2 of the biggest search engines also have their own respective browsers, where the companies have a vested interest in tracking typing, mouse clicks, and other online behaviors to advertise or anything.

Re:Like that will happen (0)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070102)

It is not like 2 of the biggest search engines also have their own respective browsers, where the companies have a vested interest in tracking typing, mouse clicks, and other online behaviors to advertise or anything.

Nonsense. Google has already said it will honor your preference - all you have to do is add "_do_not_track" to your individual email account name - for example "billy.west_do_not_track@planex.com".

Usually I post the whole text (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070082)

But this isn't technically email, though the principle is the same. You only get a Link [craphound.com] .

Your post advocates a ( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

...

not quite do not track- more like pretend not to (1)

Tyrannosaur (2485772) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070136)

" Possible exemption for aggregate analytics ISSUE-22: Still have "operational use" of data (auditing of where ads are shown, impression tracking, etc.) ISSUE-23: Possible exemption for analytics ISSUE-73: In order for analytics or other contracting to count as first-party: by contract, by technical silo, both silo and contract ISSUE-24: Possible exemption for fraud detection and defense ISSUE-25: Possible exemption for research purposes ISSUE-28: Exception for mandatory legal process ISSUE-75: How do companies claim exemptions and is that technical or not? ISSUE-31: Minimization -- to what extent will minimization be required for use of a particular exemption? (conditional exemptions) ISSUE-36: Should DNT opt-outs distinguish between behavioral targeting and other personalization? ISSUE-74: Are surveys out of scope? ISSUE-92: If data collection (even very specific with IP address, user agent, referrer) is time-limited, with very limited retention, is that still tracking?ISSUE-72: Basic principle: independent use as an agent of a first party ISSUE-89: Does DNT mean at a high level: (a) no customization, users are seen for the first time, every time. (b) DNT is about data moving between sites. ISSUE-97: Re-direction, shortened URLs, click analytics -- what kind of tracking is this? " This doesn't sound like a very thorough DoNotTrack

Re:not quite do not track- more like pretend not t (2)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070686)

It's because they don't want you to track what THEY are doing.

Calling this "do not track" is like ... well, like pretty much all those other misnamed initiatives.

Eventually, we'll all just have to set up a random generator that routes all over the place, uses auto-generated bogus email accounts, and randomly clicks on tons of ads - when it gets to the point that invasive targeted ads are worse than plain display ads with no tracking, they'll drop the tracking.

When? (1)

ukoda (537183) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070180)

So when they say "summer 2012" do they mean Jan/Feb 2012 or Nov/Dev 2012?

Re:When? (1)

webnut77 (1326189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070458)

So when they say "summer 2012" do they mean Jan/Feb 2012 or Nov/Dev 2012?

You live on the bottom side of the earth, don't you? How come you guys don't fall off?

Re:When? (1)

ukoda (537183) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070536)

Bottom? I'm in New Zealand. We don't fall off because we are on the top. The Earth obversely spins clockwise so therefore South Pole is on the top. It's all explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversed_map [wikipedia.org]

Re:When? (1)

webnut77 (1326189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070674)

So, does the sun rise in the West or does you day progress from evening 'til morning?

Re:When? (1)

ukoda (537183) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070748)

Now you just being silly! Of course it rises in the East tracking from left to right across the sky/map to set in the West. Logical when you think about it, same direction most of us write.

Re:When? (1)

webnut77 (1326189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070880)

tracking from left to right across the sky/map

Wait, I confused. I'm facing West; from left to right? Ah, forgot: this is summer 2012.

Re:When? (1)

ukoda (537183) | more than 2 years ago | (#38071160)

It would help if you look at the Wikipedia link in my earlier posting, When you use a corrected map with the South Pole at the top you will find the East is on your left. With summer pretty much started here and straddling the New Year it is unclear if it should be called the Summer of 2011 or 2012? Doesn't the W in W3C stand for World? So using a season for a time frame is ambiguous. Not as bad as saying 'Fall' which has to be translated from American to the English 'Autumn' then possibly reversed to 'Spring'. Q1 or Q3 is so much easier!

Re:When? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38072632)

From your link:

A reversed map, also known as an Upside-Down map

I think it's pretty clear that everyone knows you're drawing the map upside down...

Re:When? (1)

psiclops (1011105) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070570)

we used to spray all of the floors with glue. but as they would inevitably lose their stickiness and we had to keep re-spraying we eventually decided it would be a whole lot easier to just put glue on the bottom of our shoes. so this is what we do now.

i'm personally trying to come up with some sort of velcro solution at the moment. it's not going as well as i'd hoped :(

Re:When? (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 2 years ago | (#38074860)

It must be cool living in the future. The 4:15 at Chepstow will be run hours earlier for you than it is for us. Get yourself to the bookies and make a fortune!

Evil bit? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070186)

RFC 3514 [ietf.org] was meant as a joke. This time it looks like people are discussing it for real. Let's go ahead and add a "Captain Justice" HTTP header that would command all the bad guys to immediately stop being evil.

Opt-out ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070256)

Please enable by default and let people opt-in to "I want to be tracked".

Good luck with that (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070388)

Those europe and asia-based trackers will still obsess over you.

I'm looking at you, eXtreme-Nosing.

Do Not Want (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070482)

Of course all the major companies want this feature. That way, they can code their websites to be completely disabled if they detect you don't allow tracking. It won't say disabled, but agree to this for a vastly improved experience. You'll be 'forced' to agree to them tracking you to view their site and now, in theory, they have your legal permission to do whatever with whatever they can get from you. Similar to agreeing to TOCs before using a website, but now it's transparent for all normal users (browsers will ship with tracking enabled by default). Thus every website can require tracking as it won't impede the user experience, except for those not wanted anyway.

"Please don't be evil" bit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070716)

Isn't this sort of thing just a variation on the "evil bit" (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3514)?

Re:"Please don't be evil" bit (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38072054)

This makes the bit a tristate one; "evil", "not evil" and "don't blame us; you didn't ask".

I'm guessing the most common use-case for this feature will be "track user" and "track user but try to hide it".

Why opt-out? (2)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38071634)

Opt-out is cashing in on the users who are lazy or don't get it.

Like spam, any solution short of opt-in won't solve anything.

Obligatory xkcd (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38071896)

http://xkcd.com/927/

Don't believe it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38072102)

It will only make it easier for the authorities to find and track the people who might really have something to hide. Streisand effect, if you will.

More BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38072568)

Even if you select a "Do Not Track" option, at some point it will be turned back on again. If you doubt this then I suggest you turn of text messages on your cell phone, and wait and see how long it is before your carrier decides to turn them back on.

Just more entropy (1)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 2 years ago | (#38074114)

Oh great, attach more bits of entropy to your browser's set of environment variables that can uniquely identify you to malicious web applications.

The best way not to be tracked is to make your browser spoof the default configurations of very common browsers like Firefox or Internet Explorer, and then switch randomly between which profiles it spoofs as you navigate from site to site.

Sorry you can't come here, unless you reset your (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38074736)

Privacy setting to something we like.

Help confine phishing to a smaller group (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 2 years ago | (#38074950)

Have an "I will open strange attachments and will share my personal details to anyone who asks" list. Spam will drastically decline if the scammers have a single list they can target. Companies can prevent a lot of fraud by refusing to provide accounts to anyone on the list. I'm pretty sure the people who need to be on such a list won't volunteer. Easy solution, send them an email asking them to provide their bank details to prizeadminstraton@dutchinternationallotery.econohosting.cn in order to collect their lottery winnings. Anyone responding goes on the list.

Check for New 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...