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!

Twitter Confirms Support For Do Not Track

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the pinky-swear dept.

Privacy 33

oyenamit writes "In a significant boost to online privacy, Twitter has announced that they will officially support the Do Not Track feature in browsers. While this is a good news for privacy advocates and users in general, it leaves Twitter to use only the information that is handed over to them by the users for advertising purposes."

cancel ×

33 comments

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

mobile browsers ? (1)

rzr (898397) | more than 2 years ago | (#40054007)

who's next ? is this feat supported in mobile browsers too ? Else I fear I have to warmup my chrooted rootfs on device : http://rzr.online.fr/q/ubuntu [online.fr] :-)

As it should be... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054033)

If people want to provide their information in exchange for targeted advertising and such, so be it.

To amass tons of personal information on people without their knowledge or consent should be the exception to the rule (broken by only the most disreputable of online operators), not the rule itself.

Also, hurray for Firefox, a driving force in protection of privacy and browser customization. :)

Re:As it should be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054125)

That was my thought on the matter. It's like those scummy vendors that insist upon bundling a free trial with your purchase and have it set to auto-renew if you don't cancel within that time frame. If I wanted that service I would have signed up for it, making the trial mandatory in the hopes that people will forget makes me not want to buy from them.

But, the same problem always seems to come up, how dare the government do something to help out the populace. This typically from the same people that gripe about how the government never does anything good. Well, no shit Sherlock, you're voting for people that are promising to fuck up the government.

Same goes here, there really should be government regulations telling them that they can't do this without permission.

Re:As it should be... (3, Informative)

thsths (31372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055499)

> Same goes here, there really should be government regulations telling them that they can't do this without permission.

In a huge part of the world there is, and tracking is only legal with the user's consent. But nobody seems to care.

Re:As it should be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054685)

Maybe... but now we'll miss moments like this. [youtube.com]

Re:As it should be... (-1, Offtopic)

rfuilrez (1213562) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055335)

replying to remove incorrect Moderating

DNT can only be implemented in the *browser* (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054037)

By for example not storing cookies, not running javascripts from tracking sites, not loading web bugs, and if you really want to be careful, surfing through a proxy. RequestPolicy helps a lot too.

Anything else is just an illusion that will lull the less tech literate into a false sense of security. Sure, a few sites may honor some DNT sent from your browser, but you'll never know which don't, and if laws require it, the tracking will just be pushed outside the USA e.g, outside the jurisdiction of those laws. And if any sites don't, then you STILL have the original problem: you're being tracked. Unless this reaches 100% support among all web sites in all countries, it's useless, because your browser not leaking the data in the first place is still the only way to avoid being tracked.

If you don't want sites tracking you, don't leak information they can track! Otherwise you're just fooling yourself. And for the love of christ, don't use google or facebook or load any of their tracking crap that's spewed all around the web these days.

plus, feds! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054055)

Not only that but if you do it by not leaking, it means you don't have to trust the site or whoever they give your info to. Think the US government cares about DNT, with that huge new data center they're building in Utah to collect everyone's browsing info? Guess again. They will track you, no matter what DNT header your browser sends.

DNT is crap to fool the unthinking masses. Don't fall for it.

Re:DNT can only be implemented in the *browser* (4, Insightful)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 2 years ago | (#40054087)

DNT gives sites the opportunity to *let on* they don't track people.

You'd have to be naive as fcuk to believe what some company claims to do in their legalese wall of text privacy policy has much bearing on what actually goes on.

Re:DNT can only be implemented in the *browser* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055595)

That's very easily fixed. If you can prove that they lied a class action lawsuit will follow. That's why companies like Google have big armies of lawyers (known as legal shitheads among engineers) and are very careful about this.

--
Sundar Pichai is the utter asshole whose incompetence has resulted in the shutdown of Google's Atlanta office.

Re:DNT can only be implemented in the *browser* (1)

thsths (31372) | more than 2 years ago | (#40057277)

> DNT gives sites the opportunity to *let on* they don't track people.

Not as I understand it, and that is the main flow of DNT. It gives the use the opportunity to express a preference, which is great. But if they website does not support DNT, this preference is just ignored. There should be a way to block sites that do not support DNT.

Of course you still have a point, and Google says the same: we should not trust websites. The browser should enforce privacy is much as desired and possible. But once people have to choose between enabling privacy or using facebook... I have a feeling the majority will ignore privacy.

Re:DNT can only be implemented in the *browser* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054155)

Well yeah it's obviously true that it has to be done in the browser, but the problem is that's just too hard for most normal people right now; It requires installing what, half a dozen or more extensions? Noscript, RequestPolicy, Ghostery, blah blah.

There really needs ot be something like "private browsing mode", but done entirely browser side by not leaking data. Make it use some onion router for extra safety if you really want. But it should be ONE setting, a simple checkbox, not require installing a bajallion extensions that most people don't even know about.

Re:DNT can only be implemented in the *browser* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054183)

It would never happen. The economic incentive isn't there. The web runs on advertising dollars, which are basically from tracking your ass all around the web. Dry those dollars up, and it all crumbles. So, it will never happen.

DNT provides an "illusion" of not being tracked, and that'll be good enough to fool the less critically minded people (e.g, most) while at the same time not killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Re:DNT can only be implemented in the *browser* (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054657)

Reminder that Google, who makes its money from ad tracking, remains the last browser vendor to not natively support DNT.

Re:DNT can only be implemented in the *browser* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40055875)

Why would they want to do that? They make money by tracking you! That's why my firewall blocks all Google address space.

Re:DNT can only be implemented in the *browser* (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054793)

The only thing worse than the state of online privacy these days is people who care about their privacy too much. So Twitter knows you visited a site, that's affected your life how? Answer: it hasn't. You were advertised to before and you're advertised to now. Nobody is knocking at your door, nobody has destroyed your chance at promotion and nobody has kidnapped your children. You're fine, just chill the hell out.

Re:DNT can only be implemented in the *browser* (2)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055401)

Nobody is knocking at your door, nobody has destroyed your chance at promotion and nobody has kidnapped your children.

Yet.

Re:DNT can only be implemented in the *browser* (2)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#40056089)

people who care about their privacy too much

Does. Not. Compute.

I am willing to fight and die for your children not living under Ingsoc.

The solution is feed them FALSE Tracking (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054855)

If the browser fed the trackers completely false and misleading information information, that would be the worst thing imaginable for them, and best for me. Scripts, Java and cookies could all be intercepted , and crap or carefully crafted false data feed back.

I will pay handsomely for the first app to tease and conspire against tracking sites to feed them complete crap, and spoil their leads database and expensive marketing campaigns. Better would be to dynamically offer competing site 'B', or give a popup saying oh 'Porn Subscription Advertising popup blocked - IP info of Senator xxxxxx at the White-house has been substituted and subscribed.

The false email names and addresses I give out make it abundantly clear they have been duded. Advertisers would soon figure out they are paying $100's or $1000's for crap leads. Technology has not (yet) been used to counter the problem.

One big problem remains. Use Ebay or Amazon to look at pregnancy test kits or baby clothes, and you mailbox becomes stuffed - even if your address begins with 'White Lady Funeral Crematorium', as do new car brochures. Lots of stock paper for burning...

I thought... (4, Funny)

kenh (9056) | more than 2 years ago | (#40054043)

I thought the whole point of Twitter was to collect followers? Maybe they could launch a new service for those folks that want to share intimate stories but not have anyone read it - I even have the perfect name for it - "/dev/null"

Re:I thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054073)

what a coinkydink - that's my cache/cookies folder

Re:I thought... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40054651)

Twitter doesn't need to know the address of every page you visit just to publish your coments.

I'm just a random Tor exit node (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054429)

IMO "Do Not Track" is stupid.

If you don't want to be tracked, use The Tor Browser Bundle.

double standards (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054627)

"...it leaves Twitter to use only the information that is handed over to them by the users for advertising purposes."

THIS IS A BAD THING???!!!!???

Most everyone on this site complains how much is being collected. A company decides not to collect information from unwilling and unsuspecting people and all the comments are negative. Maybe the US Government is right in collecting all they can. People don't seem to know what they want anyway.

Scorpion confirms support for do-not-sting (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40054731)

Scorpion confirms support for do-not-sting; Frogs everywhere rejoice.
Drowning at eleven.

Analytics or tracking? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055271)

Is it bad to collect page views, time on site, page depth (how many pages viewed), load time, etc?

Cookies are used to "track" you on every website that uses any typical analytics package.

Where do we draw the line between looking at whether a site is functioning as intended vs. invasion of privacy?

If I want to see load times for repeat visitors (to look at the impact of cache settings) visitors have to be assigned a UID that persists for days/weeks at least. No, test sessions are not useful. I need aggregate data from different regions, different browsers, etc.

If my privacy policy says I won't share this data, is that enough? My goals are to create and maintain websites that serve my customers as effectively as possible. There are just too many variables to do QA against all browsers, network speeds, devices,

So what changed? (3, Informative)

Altanar (56809) | more than 2 years ago | (#40055315)

Has Twitter *ever* used direct browser data to advertise? I thought 100% of their business model was giving paid suggestions depending on your public tweets and follow list. The DNT toggle won't change that. They're essentially not changing anything. It's not like Twitter has regular ads on the site. They're all paid stream inserts and paid trending topics. The paid inserts have never been based off a cookie or off-site browser behavior.

Re:So what changed? (1)

vmlemon (1203598) | more than 2 years ago | (#40056225)

They display adverts to users who have their interface language set to Japanese - but I don't know what their return on investment is. Most of them seem to be for cosmetics, TV shows, restaurants, and weird racing events (and have no bearing on what a user Tweets about), anyway.

There is quite a few addons that assist you... (1)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 2 years ago | (#40056249)

The tools are there for those who want. And it doesn't take much work to use them.

Re:There is quite a few addons that assist you... (1)

Tyrannosaur (2485772) | more than 2 years ago | (#40060651)

Don't forget http://www.ghostery.com/ [ghostery.com]

Re:There is quite a few addons that assist you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40061595)

Just bear in mind that Ghostery is a product of an advertising company, Evidon [evidon.com] , with the explict goal to keep quality content ad-supported and free.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have (1) quality for a small fee or (2) quality and no ads. But nothing in between.

So Ghostery is a clever mechanism of maintaing the status quo that brings advertising companies revenue.

yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40056425)

ad block plus and I get no ads. oh well.

backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40056853)

This solution is completely backwards. If you don't want to be tracked, then block 3rd party cookies.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?