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!

Yahoo To Implement Do Not Track

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the stop-looking-at-me dept.

Privacy 40

Trailrunner7 writes "Yahoo has decided that it's now time to start implementing a Do Not Track system across its various Web properties. The company is one of the last large Web content providers to officially commit to using a DNT technology, and Yahoo said that it plans to have the system implemented by early summer. Yahoo officials said that their Do Not Track implementation has been in development since 2011 and that it will be a simple way for consumers to turn on the DNT option."

cancel ×

40 comments

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

Wow... (3, Funny)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540641)

People still use Yahoo? Did I just pass through a wormhole to 2003?

Re:Wow... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39540739)

More and more people have been using a form of do not track on Yahoo for a while now, it's called I "do not use".

Fuck you Slashdot (-1, Troll)

ThurstonMoore (605470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540781)

Fuck you and April 1st.

Re:Fuck you Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39540791)

Aw, did someone hold onto their shares too long?

Re:Wow... (2, Informative)

Cute Fuzzy Bunny (2234232) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540803)

Yeah, talk about "who cares". They actually deleted my email account and its heavy load of two text emails. I thought most businesses were smart enough to hold onto 'dead subscribers'. But after they've basically spent 5 years moving stuff around on their pages without really changing the content, I became increasingly annoyed at having to get used to a new format without any new content or content improvement. Change without actual change is a waste of my time.

More recently I've found that clicking on yahoo news stories brings up a video of the story along with the text, and it cheerfully starts the video for me. I've gotten used to this particular lack of manners, since I asked to read a story not watch a video. But now if you pause the video, it waits about 4 seconds (long enough to scroll down off the video) and then it starts it right back up for you.

Thing is, I usually have three people sleeping about 8' from me when I'm READING frickin stuff on the internet, so I dont want video and sound. And if I've said I dont want to watch it by pressing pause, dont go ahead and shove it up my nose anyhow.

So yahoo's last tab on my browser went away and was replaced by its googe equivalent. I suspect Yahoo will find a way to delete their own tabs internally and just wither away and die quite soon. /Should have taken that money from Microsoft. I think that would have finished both of them off.

Re:Wow... (1)

ciotog (1098035) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540873)

Thing is, I usually have three people sleeping about 8' from me when I'm READING frickin stuff on the internet, so I dont want video and sound.

Mute?

Re:Wow... (1)

Cute Fuzzy Bunny (2234232) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540933)

That would be swell if I remembered to check it when I open the computer so as to avoid the volume being turned up to 11 by my seven year old the night before. But at 6am, pre-coffee...

Plus when I pause something because I dont want it, and you start it back up again because you think I do, or dont care if I do or not, then you'll no longer be of interest to me.

If nothing else, its streaming video that counts towards my cap, which I'm not watching and dont want to watch.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39542377)

Wait until Lycos get in on the action!

April Fools! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39540655)

They'll still track you. Good joke, Yahoo!

Not sure if April fool prank... (2)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540673)

...or serious news.

Re:Not sure if April fool prank... (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540719)

Yeah, I ranted about that earlier.

"Yahoo has a backbone" - "April Fools! They are just as evil as they were yesterday".

Let's *suppose* it's not a prank. Yahoo has a chance to make a comeback by being Not-Google. Make a legit declaration verified by auditors that privacy protection really is in place as much as they can.

I would die laughing if the answer to Google's evil is ... wait for it ... Yahoo.

Re:Not sure if April fool prank... (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39541411)

Let's *suppose* it's not a prank. Yahoo has a chance to make a comeback by being Not-Google.

Except that Google has had do-not-track tools in place for a long time now. Yahoo would need to do more than that. Auditors might be a good idea... actually, that's something that Google should probably consider.

Re:Google has had... (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39543141)

My view is that whatever Do Not Track tools Google has/used to have, either now or very soon they will be eclipsed by the "we will track you more" anti-privacy policy.

Re:Google has had... (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39543421)

My view is that whatever Do Not Track tools Google has/used to have, either now or very soon they will be eclipsed by the "we will track you more" anti-privacy policy.

Upon what do you base that view? What I see of Google's privacy policy and behavior around privacy -- both what I see publicly and what I see internally (I work for Google) -- leads me to a very different conclusion.

Re:Google has had... (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39545787)

Upon what do you base that view? What I see of Google's privacy policy and behavior around privacy -- both what I see publicly and what I see internally (I work for Google) -- leads me to a very different conclusion.

you make a very big assumption that anyone trusts you. If it can be done, it will be done.

Re:Google has had... (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39549467)

Upon what do you base that view? What I see of Google's privacy policy and behavior around privacy -- both what I see publicly and what I see internally (I work for Google) -- leads me to a very different conclusion.

you make a very big assumption that anyone trusts you. If it can be done, it will be done.

I don't think I'm making any assumptions, just drawing conclusions based on observations. I guess my one assumption is that one can draw conclusions and apply them to the future based on observations of the past. But if we throw out that assumption, well, then we can't ever know anything.

Also, your statement that "if it can be done it will be done" is obviously false. It's essentially the most severe possible extension of the slippery slope fallacy. I'm not saying that we can discount the possibility that people or organizations may change their behavior in the future, and potentially for the worse, nor that we should ignore the possible implications of what changes in behavior may allow, based on the data we provide today, but assuming the worst possible outcome in all cases is just as misleading as wearing rose-colored glasses.

Bottom line, if you have reasons for assuming Google will make a major turnaround in its privacy policies in the future, spit them out. If it's just generalized fearfulness of all large organization, then say so.

Re:Google has had... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39550597)

It's very simple. I don't trust assholes like Vic Gundotra any further than I can throw them.

--
Disclaimer: I work for TAGA (The Arrogant Google Assholes)

Re:Google has had... (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556045)

Also, your statement that "if it can be done it will be done" is obviously false. It's essentially the most severe possible extension of the slippery slope fallacy.

Good heavens, not even absolutely false. Better yet, the question would be, if it can be done - why would it not be done?

I have no fear of large corporations. But not trusting them is not fear. Just common sense. There are shareholders that need served, and they are serving them, not me. There's a long litany of corporations who have done some shady and illegal things. And there really isn't much punishment when they get caught. All in all, it's pretty profitable.

I don't lose any sleep over it, because corporations are made up of people, and I know people. It's just how things work.

Re:Google has had... (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39556193)

Also, your statement that "if it can be done it will be done" is obviously false. It's essentially the most severe possible extension of the slippery slope fallacy.

Good heavens, not even absolutely false. Better yet, the question would be, if it can be done - why would it not be done?

Ah, now that's a more reasonable statement/question. Why indeed would it not be done? If doing it would destroy their business, you can be pretty certain it will not be done. If it would violate the moral sensibilities of the people in charge -- assuming they have any -- you can also have some assurance it will not be done.

I have no fear of large corporations. But not trusting them is not fear. Just common sense. There are shareholders that need served, and they are serving them, not me.

But in the case of Google, the leaders of the company have very little motivation to serve the shareholders. Because of the voting stock structure, Larry Page and Sergey Brin outvote the rest of the shareholders combined. And they really have no need to worry much about share price, either; the stock could drop by 90% and they'd both still be so wealthy that they could never spend their money.

There's a long litany of corporations who have done some shady and illegal things. And there really isn't much punishment when they get caught. All in all, it's pretty profitable.

Government punishment is pretty ineffective, true. What absolutely matters is customers. If Google's users begin to avoid its products, then advertisers will cease giving Google huge piles of money. Much of Google's profitability rests directly on the trust of the user base. Even if the leadership weren't composed of engineers whose goals tend to be oriented around doing great things for the world (yeah, a bit overblown on the rhetoric, but probably not surprising for people who rocketed from unknown Ph.D. students to an essential part of the world's information systems in a handful of years), and even if Google weren't an engineer-driven, bottom-up decision-making organization, cold-eyed, rational analysis would lead Google to avoid doing anything too offensive.

I don't lose any sleep over it, because corporations are made up of people, and I know people. It's just how things work.

Do you know geeks? Because that's what Google is, a company run by geeks for geeks. Personally, being a geek and knowing how geeks think about privacy, that gives me a great deal of confidence in Google's decisions around privacy.

Perhaps a decade or two down the road, Larry and Sergey will have sold off most of their stock to fund their respective foundations, and Google will be in more traditional hands and run more like a traditional company. Until then, I'm not worried.

Re:Google has had... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39557577)

Do you know geeks? Because that's what Google is, a company run by geeks for geeks. Personally, being a geek and knowing how geeks think about privacy, that gives me a great deal of confidence in Google's decisions around privacy.

Are you telling me that an asshole like Vic Gundotra is a geek? Thank you for the good laugh.

FWIW Google employs plenty of non-geeks in pretty much all non-eng areas of the company, from the low IQ sales retards who can't behave properly all the way to the top, like David Drummon, Chief Legal Asshole.

--
Disclaimer I work for TAGA (The Arrogant Google Assholes)

Re:Not sure if April fool prank... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39543187)

I'd rather use a Yahoo product that one from TAGA (The Arrogant Google Assholes).

--
Disclaimer: I work for TAGA (The Arrogant Google Assholes).

Re:Not sure if April fool prank... (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39545779)

I cannot imagine for a minute that anyone who uses a "do not track" option will be tracked specifically because of the request.

Sort of like a sting operation.

Re:Not sure if April fool prank... (1)

philbert2.71828 (781399) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540729)

The press release [yahoo.com] is from March 29. A company acting kind of sensibly? Here's hoping it's true.

April Fools Jokes (0, Troll)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540689)

Google's: the "Quest" feature for Maps, Google Racing

Yahoo's: People still use Yahoo

corporate weaseling (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39540697)

and that it will be a simple way for consumers to turn on the DNT option.

Why dont they simply say they will honor the DNT browser preference ? Can we expect corporate weaseling when they announce it and it turns out to be some cookie based, yahoo-specific, joke of a solution ?

April's Fool (1)

acid06 (917409) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540713)

Is it just me or this year's April's Fool is sucking hard here on Slashdot?
Come on, don't fail me this time Slashdot!

Re:April's Fool (1)

jcreus (2547928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540787)

Frist April Fool's Day without CmdrTaco, maybe?

Re:April's Fool (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540997)

omgponies was the last time any real effort was put in.

A year or two ago they introduced achievements, but they actually kept them around (which was admittedly kinda funny).

Translation (2)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540743)

"Our lawyers have assured us that we can legally redefine 'do not track' to not really offer you any protection at all."

Re:Translation (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39541013)

I've always read DNT that way. Just reject the cookies and pixels outright, with plugin_of_choice or IE9 Tracking Protection or what-have-you.

You believe in 'do not track'? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39540765)

I bet you vote republican/demoncrat... what a bunch of dumbasses you are.. If Yahoo actually does not track, it's because Google/NSA is doing it for them

Not April Fool's (3, Informative)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 2 years ago | (#39540899)

This is from three days ago on cnet. [cnet.com]

Does not appear to be an AF joke.

Re:Not April Fool's (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 2 years ago | (#39541017)

Or you could have RTFA from March 30th.

So that leaves Google (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39542649)

So that leaves Google as the last major entity not to implement DNT. Article says: "Google recently said that it will implement the technology in Chrome sometime soon." There's nothing stopping Google from having implemented it already--they're just stalling because they don't want to affect ad revenue. All the other major browsers implemented it long ago. Google loves to give these vague promises of things and then never follow through, especially when it affects their bottom line.

Relevant Dilbert strip (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 2 years ago | (#39541015)

"Yahoo officials said that their Do Not Track implementation has been in development since 2011 and that it will be a simple way for consumers to turn on the DNT option."

Link [dilbert.com]

I don't believe it before I see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39541091)

I'll continue my use of DuckDuckGo, as I do not trust Yahoo!'s intentions here. As said above, I'm sure Yahoo!'s lawyers refine DNT to slightly-less-track. If they do pull off a good implementation that's transparent and doesn't violate the customer in every possible way (as google does) I'm sure they'll have a increase in site hits. But before that, they should re-design their GUI to something less annoying. ya rly

Stop The Yahoo Spam Tsunami First (0)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39541299)

Yahoo, this is all fine but I think the rest of the world would be happier if you would first stop the tsunami of spam email that comes from @yahoo.com servers. It's ridiculous. Unless you want to block every moron who still uses an @yahoo.com email address, you are stuck putting up with a tidal wave of spam.

Highly illogical (2)

RedHat Rocky (94208) | more than 2 years ago | (#39541453)

Tracking who is not tracked while not tracking them.

Hmm.

Oh, right, it's that stupid day when I should stay away from Slashdot, whoops.

Third Party Tracking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39542237)

What about waybackmachine?

What about other 'social' aggregators. Google Ghost for instance, and various other ways that have jumped around the robot.txt restrictions.

An internal DNT switch for a network is a good idea, but what are they doing to give similar client protection against competitors? (And quite possibly one-step-removed "partners" whom they may still buy the info from.)

[While we're mentioning waybackmachine, that's the real loss for Linux when Flash goes away. A large section of the early archive will become inaccessible.]

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>