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!

Advertisers Never Intended To Honor DNT

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the creative-interpretation dept.

Privacy 308

First time accepted submitter oldlurker writes "After much discussion where many hoped a voluntary Do Not Track standard was agreed with advertisers, it turns out the advertisers already had a very different interpretation than most of us on how to practice it: 'Two big associations, the Interactive Advertising Bureau and the Digital Advertising Alliance, represent 90% of advertisers. Downey says those big groups have devised their own interpretation of Do Not Track. When the servers controlled by those big companies encounter a DNT=1 header, says Downey, "They have said they will stop serving targeted ads but will still collect and store and monetize data."'"

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

Missing the Point? (5, Interesting)

kraln (1477093) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427591)

Isn't that missing the entire point? Or is the do-not-track specification one of those Orwellian-titled things whereby the net effect is exactly the opposite of the name?

Re:Missing the Point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427617)

On the contrary ... it is a very good pointer of someone who understands a little bit (at least of the world) so a prime target for more elaborate schemes ...

I smell conflict on the horizon (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428457)

We're a couple decades into the general public into this inter-tube-network-doohickey.
It's been my observation that when advertisers get too smug, they lose their ass to mass protest and activism.
Some group with an opposing idea of privacy to the corporate norm will probably be glad to trade DNT for DOS.
All I have to do is sit back and keep readin' /., gimme a beer would'ja?...

Re:Missing the Point? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427625)

Isn't that missing the entire point?

Maybe, but not collecting and monetising the data is missing the point of trying to make money, and we can't have that now can we?!

They don't seem too different to the music industry: they can't quite grasp that pissing people off may be a bad way to try making money out of them, and if you try to avoid their countermeasures you're obviously someone who wants something for nothing and a terrible person.

Re:Missing the Point? (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427965)

Why should they honour it? It's the browser which is voluntarily giving out identifiable data! Sort your browser out if you don't want to be tracked.

DNT is the same as saying passwords aren't required, because there's a "do not impersonate me" standard.

Re:Missing the Point? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428165)

It's the browser which is voluntarily giving out identifiable data!

Which, in many cases, has legitimate uses. That's like arguing that because my car openly displays my number plate that it's OK to use that to construct a database on where I go and send me advertising based on that.

Re:Missing the Point? (2)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428361)

The point here is "voluntary". If it was voluntary to display the number plate, you should sort your car out if you don't want it to display yours, and I should be allowed to record and track whatever I wanted to.

Re:Missing the Point? (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428277)

Why should they honour it?

Because it respects the social compact between businesses and the citizens they serve.

Instead, we have a prisoners dilemma where one prisoner has nothing to lose *and* can tweak the rules if they bribe^W lobby the rule makers.

Re:Missing the Point? (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428397)

"Social compact" - what pretentious bollocks.

Your browser is leaking your info - fix that. Trying to stop people taking advantage is so utterly the wrong approach here, its the same as any security related issue - make your end as secure as you possibly can, because the world is a big wide open and very bad place. You cannot control the other end, but you can control what you are leaking.

Also, pathetic hacks like DNT do not work even when backed with legal status - the internet is not one jurisdiction, but your browser certainly is... fix your data leakage at the source, not at the receiving end.

Re:Missing the Point? (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428515)

Then here's the question:

What measures should we take to stop the browser from leaking our information? Is there any way to do so without losing functionality, such as saved sessions?

Re:Missing the Point? (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428643)

Stop accepting cookies from anyone except the first origin website for a start - advertisers use their own cookies to track you across sites, using site specific cookies makes tracking you across sites extremely hard. Session cookies aren't an issue - if you are using my website, you don't have any leg to stand on when asking me to not track your usage of my website.

Remove a lot of information from the user agent string. Take it back to browser name, major number, minor number.

Stop allowing plug ins etc to add user agent detail or request header lines.

Treat third party images the same way as cookies.

Rigidly enforce plugin security, so things like Flash cannot maintain cookies etc outside of the browsers control.

Etc etc etc.

There are plenty of things that the browsers need to fess up and fix before DNT can be considered to not be a joke - *asking* third parties not to do "X" when you are leaking that data voluntarily to them each time you request an object is just stupid.

If this was anything else, the onus would be on the one leaking the information - if your medical records were being leaked through system insecurity then the one being decried here on Slashdot would be the source of the leak, not the recipient! Why is this any different?

Re:Missing the Point? (5, Interesting)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428543)

And the first thing that the Mozilla Devs need to do is delete the Unique ID for Safe Browsing from the firefox code base as it's a cookie that can't be deleted. For those using Firefox and it's derivitives, change the Safe Browsing ID to "0" and help Poisson Googles Data. What really bothers me about this issue is that even when "In Private" browsing is enabled, this unique ID is being passed to Google, in direct violation of my intentions when entering "In Private" mode. This is just one more reason I rarely use Firefox. Opera has a similar feature and I suspect it does the same. Sorry but Safe Browsing needs to be completely anonymous instead of tracking us like it does now.

Re:Missing the Point? (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428473)

Browsers work fine, their ethics don't.
Hit it with a hammer if it doesn't work.
Overkill, it works everytime.

You would be just the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428625)

If anyone thought that agencies who have data tracking as their core competence would voluntarily subvert their own business plan, they were simply failing to think things through.

Humans act according to their incentives. People sometimes get confused about this because they think that humans act altruistically and that such action contradicts the "according to their incentives" ideal. Allow me to clarify:

Often, action deemed "altruistic" is actually in very good accord with one's direct incentives. A person makes a relatively small sacrifice in return for the appreciation of his peers (which has long-term value since appreciative peers tend to return favors), a sense of moral uprightness (which has psychological value), and an escape from boredom (and/or depression, social isolation). It is only in very rare cases that altruistic actions are very altruistic at all, and very few people actually engage in them.

There is a significant chunk of the population that doesn't even bother with the above-defined form of altruism, because they get better payoff from profiteering. Rich people don't need friends to return favors, they can just pay people to do whatever they need. So, the incentives rich people face all point at making more money.

Re:Missing the Point? (3, Insightful)

Enter the Shoggoth (1362079) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427633)

Isn't that missing the entire point? Or is the do-not-track specification one of those Orwellian-titled things whereby the net effect is exactly the opposite of the name?

No it's just that advertisers are a bunch of assholes who think that free speech = unfettered right to harass everyone even when they're sleeping, eating, screwing, working or taking a dump.

It's about time people woke up and realised that there should be limits to what _both_ companies and governments aught to be able to do.

Re:Missing the Point? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427669)

Eh, I'd say it's more about time people started using NoScript, Ghostery and Adblock Plus on a large scale...

Re:Missing the Point? (1)

fey000 (1374173) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428481)

Eh, I'd say it's more about time people started using NoScript, Ghostery and Adblock Plus on a large scale...

I'm using all of the aforementioned as well as DNT+. No advertising agency will make a dime off of me. On a side note, is there a well defined boundary between privacy and spite?

Re:Missing the Point? (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427753)

If you're browsing the web while you're sleeping and screwing, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Missing the Point? (1)

mellon (7048) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427767)

That's right. It's very difficult to concentrate on the messages our internet overlords are trying to get us to read if we waste time sleeping and screwing. Back to your browser, citizen!

Re:Missing the Point? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427781)

It's about time people woke up and realised that there should be limits to what _both_ companies and governments aught to be able to do.

So... who's going to enforce the limits on companies?

Re:Missing the Point? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427853)

In any other civilised nation, the government. But of course in America, that'll never happen

Re:Missing the Point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428177)

Quack. That's because government is Evil and can do nothing right. Quack.

Re:Missing the Point? (0)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427961)

It's about time people woke up and realised that there should be limits to what _both_ companies and governments aught to be able to do.

In my view, corporations get their charter from government and are thus an extension of government. It makes little difference whether a corporation or a government is doing the tracking. As a practical matter, the corporation is completely dependent on the government and will (usually) freely share the information. If they won't share, there are usually ways to induce them to share it - even without the obvious "court order", "pass a new law" or "executive order" route.

I'm not completely hyper about privacy, but I do think we lack an appreciation of exactly how much "they" know about us.

Re:Missing the Point? (5, Insightful)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428231)

So you see no difference between an elected administration and a private entity with no democratic oversight?

At the end of the day, the reason why companies are let doing perfectly dickish things in the US is people believe that the government would be worse. And so vote for people who promise they'll let companies be dicks.

The stupid, it hurts.

Re:Missing the Point? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427735)

Isn't that missing the entire point?

Err, yeah, and that's why the headline is "Advertisers Never Intended To Honor DNT."

Re:Missing the Point? (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427985)

I don't think I ever understood the point in the first place.

A polite request to please not track you, made to an industry that exists solely to make money out of tracking people?

Yeah, that was going to work...

So in other words... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427605)

...they will still track.

Re:So in other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427687)

Yeah but they are just tracking Ghost-you.
You know, that more handsome guy you see in the mirror in the morning?
Yeah, that guy. All the girls want that guy...

Re:So in other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427747)

Yeah, that guy. All the girls want that guy...

All the girls want to to be that guy.

/fixed

This is where someone will say... (5, Informative)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427607)

What ads? I use noscript and adblock.

Re:This is where someone will say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427707)

And....DNT plus and DNS crypt.

Re:This is where someone will say... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427739)

Don't forget Ghostery.

Re:This is where someone will say... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427989)

Don't forget Ghostery.

Indeed, don't forget to avoid it. it is a product of the advertising industry itself, specifically Evidon.

Don't you think they love the metrics it provides about the types of ads and beacons that people are choosing to block?

Let's see what Ghostery's maker says [evidon.com] :

That technology includes Ghostery, Evidon’s browser tool that reports on data collection across 26 million websites and informs the company’s business control solutions.

Re:This is where someone will say... (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428283)

sorry, forgot to log in...

Don't forget Ghostery.

Indeed, don't forget to avoid it. it is a product of the advertising industry itself, specifically Evidon.

Don't you think they love the metrics it provides about the types of ads and beacons that people are choosing to block?

Let's see what Ghostery's maker says [evidon.com] :

That technology includes Ghostery, Evidon’s browser tool that reports on data collection across 26 million websites and informs the company’s business control solutions.

holy shitsies you're right! i never knew that about the blocker. a little part of my heart is sadder now...

Re:This is where someone will say... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428609)

You have to volunteer that data by activating their ghostrank option. There was a AMA on reddit where the devs have said that you can unpack the archive and examine the data yourselves if you don't trust them. Apparently all it sends back to them is what advertisers ghostery saw.

Re:This is where someone will say... (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427821)

On top of noscript and adblock, I block complete domains with http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
And I also edit the css of the most visited websites with http://userstyles.org/ [userstyles.org]

Re:This is where someone will say... (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428527)

I use the mvps.org HOSTS file as well, and have been very happy with it. Pretty much all of the crap out there now lives at 127.0.0.1.

Re:This is where someone will say... (5, Interesting)

JayRott (1524587) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427943)

Of course, by doing this you get folks screaming "You are STEALING content! How do the content creators get paid?!?" I have no problem with websites making a buck, and I would even go back to viewing ads as long as they are not obnoxious or folowing me around the entire net. If they can't respect me enough to honor my choices I can't respect them enough to loan them my eyeballs. The internet was a huge push forward for information sharing, but I simply can't get behind every internet user having a dossier encompassing every site they visit or every purchase they make used for god-knows-what by god-knows-who!

Re:This is where someone will say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428017)

Of course, by doing this you get folks screaming "You are STEALING content! How do the content creators get paid?!?"

They should remove their content from the internet.

Re:This is where someone will say... (5, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428197)

I would even go back to viewing ads as long as they are not obnoxious

As far as I am concerned, the only advertisements that are not obnoxious are the ones that I specifically ask for. When do I specifically ask for advertising? When I search for products on Amazon, when I go to Craigslist, when I use Google Shopping to compare prices, etc. It is no surprise that those things are so overwhelmingly successful (both in terms of money and in terms of utilization): there is no incentive for anyone to block them, because they are giving people something useful and something people want.

The reason advertisers have such a bizarre interpretation of do-not-track is that they know they cannot make any money by respecting people. That's why I use ABP and NoScript: advertisers do not respect me, so I will not let them consume my screen space, CPU cycles or bandwidth.

As for the poor websites that claim they will go under without advertisers...well, maybe they should stand up for their users and say, "No, obnoxious, disrespectful advertising is not allowed on this website." What happened to just showing me a picture that says, "This product is better than the rest!" and leaving it at that?

Re:This is where someone will say... (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428445)

I'm 100% with you on this, and I'm here to say that because too many people are going to mod you down and/or flame you for daring to say it. Too many people don't understand that privacy is valuable and should be protected, and that corporations and governments don't give a rat's ass about any of that and only care about controlling people's lives and making profit off of them. It's a dangerous trend that may not be able to be reversed in our lifetime, if at all, but that doesn't mean that we should stop fighting against it.

Re:This is where someone will say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428233)

I use my Sonicwall to filter most of this stuff. noscript and adblock for the rest. I also use different browsers. One for general web browsing and shopping which clears my cookies, cache, and history on exit. The other for banking and personal finance which is inside a virtual machine and is only used for that purpose.

I could still be tracked by my ISP or other wiretapping or packet sniffing by the feds, but honestly at that point if you cared you are probably a criminal.

Re:This is where someone will say... (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428315)

I could still be tracked by my ISP or other wiretapping or packet sniffing by the feds, but honestly at that point if you cared you are probably a criminal.

if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide...

Re:This is where someone will say... (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428273)

That's cute. And you think that does ANYTHING other than block the targeted ads? If the only thing bad about this were the targeted ads, we wouldn't have a problem. I'd actually prefer more relevant ads. The problem is the collection of the data. When you go to nearly any website on the net, they track everything you do there. Every click you make, every form you fill out, everything. Even if they don't have your name, they have your IP, your browser, your OS... enough data to uniquely identify you. Then those sites share that data with marketing SAS firms that collate, and return sales leads. You didn't sign into that pornsite when you were looking at all that midget porn? That's alright, they ship your activity off to the marketing firm who also has a contract with Newegg, where you have an account with your full name, address, phone number etc.... They compare your IP and other details, figure out who you are and sell it back to the midget porn site. Now it's 6pm on a Tuesday, you're in the middle of dinner with your familly and your wife mentions that she got a call today about a great deal on a years subscription to assbangingmidgets.com do you think she should sign up?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Soon they will be able to predict much of your behavior and manipulate you at their whim, simply based on what your interests are. Relying on adblock is about as close to having your head in the sand as you can get.

Re:This is where someone will say... (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428471)

So what's the alternative, smart guy? Open the flood gates, let the stream of sewage (ads) in all the time? What's your genius solution? I want to hear it. Or are you one of those "people" who say "give up, you can't fight it"?

Re:This is where someone will say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428581)

I hope you did remember to turn off the ABE options ("wan ip belong local" or whatever) in your Noscript->Options->Advanced->ABE. Because otherwise it will ping home when first document is loaded. In other words, your notrack solution is tracking you. Good luck.

Wasn't the point... (5, Informative)

toxickitty (1758282) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427621)

Wasn't the whole point of this to encourage advertisers to not track and if they do you have a leg to stand on in a court because you specifically made it clear you did not want to be tracked?

Re:Wasn't the point... (2, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427653)

Wasn't the whole point of this to encourage advertisers to not track

Yes, that is the idea. However, DNT is entirely voluntary. And if you really thought that advertisers were going to honor DNT, then you are extremely stupid.

Re:Wasn't the point... (1)

toxickitty (1758282) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427749)

Good thing I'm not extremely stupid then.

Re:Wasn't the point... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427825)

No. The idea was to get a status quo between the advertisers and the users. Track the sheep (there are more than enough to make money on ), and leave the ones that don't want to be tracked alone. It was allways clear that the advertisers would only honor this agreement if only a fraction of the users would use it, but now it seems, they never intended to even honor it in that case. So fine, no status quo, all browser producers should include adblock-style auto-updating blacklists, activated by default. Game over, punks.

Re:Wasn't the point... (1)

Entrope (68843) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427693)

Exactly what theory would you (or your lawyer) use in court? That by sending an HTTP request with a "Give-Me-Money: $1000" line, and then not giving you $1000, they violated a court-enforceable contract?

The data that you send to a web server is not your property; without actual laws that limit the recording and sharing of personally identifiable data -- for example, Europe's data privacy laws -- or an actual contract between you and the web site's provider, you have no legally reasonable expectation that advertisers will not get, keep, massage, and exploit anything they can determine about who is viewing the web page or what else that person has looked at or done.

Re:Wasn't the point... (1)

toxickitty (1758282) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427787)

There's a difference between expressing what you want done with your "property" and demanding someone give you "property".

Re:Wasn't the point... (1)

Entrope (68843) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428059)

As I said, the bits you send to the web server are not your property. You seem to think that sending a Do-Not-Track header line gives you some claim about what the web server (and its owner(s) and their partners) can do with their property. That is why I made the exaggerated analogy to a Give-Me-Money header.

The argument for DNT (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428221)

The point of DNT was to address the most serious privacy concerns about advertising without simply blocking ads (because people have this idea that advertising is paying for the web; I have my doubts). Supposedly advertisers would be compelled to comply, because otherwise people will see that the advertisers do not respect their wishes and then they will install things like ABP.

Now we see that advertisers are not respecting DNT, so now we should get back to making sure everyone installs ABP.

Please don't eat me (5, Insightful)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427623)

"Please don't eat me, brother Wolf!" cried the Rabbit. "Aw, all right." said the Wolf, rolling his eyes. "I'll just trade you to brother Fox for some hens. Is that ok with you?"

Re:Please don't eat me (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427795)

You can eat those rabbits who don't have a "Please don't eat me" sign, *if* you honor the PDEM-Sign. If you don't, we'll arm ALL the rabbits with shotguns.

Semantics (4, Informative)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427639)

It's do not track not cover up track. I think these fellas need a course in remedial grammar.

There are times I do want, say, Google to keep my data, and I don't care if they share it -- like if I search for Minecraft stuffs, I want MC stuff to appear on my search. Or if I search a topic and I'd rather be swayed towards more reliable sources that I would frequent rather than like, "HOMEOPATHY MAGIC QUANTUM JUICE PANACEA MAKE MONEY FROM HOME."

For everthing else, there's Duck Duck Go [duckduckgo.com]

That's OK (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427661)

I have my browsers not respect their wishes on page composition and ad presentation, so I don't really expect them to respect my do-not-track header either. Their domains would first have to make it past my DNS blackhole anyway.

Where can I buy it... (4, Funny)

sinij (911942) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427665)

They keep showing me adds for 127.0.0.1, but I can't seem to find where to by this great product. Anyone has any idea?

Re:Where can I buy it... (3, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427835)

Home Depot, check your local area.

Re:Where can I buy it... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428485)

127.0.0.1 is like a Canary. If you start seeing ads at that address, then you know you're fucked.

Captain Obvious to the rescue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427675)

Does this really surprise anyone? You mess with a company's ability to make money and of course they're going to bend (or flat out ignore) any rules, whether they're opt-in or not. These companies serve ads, it's what they do. If you think you can take that away and they won't try to profit another way, then you may not know why businesses actually exist, no matter how slimy they are.

Re:Captain Obvious to the rescue! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427723)

Let me add on that nobody is forced to go to websites that serve ads. The websites allow them on their sites for a reason. If you don't like it, install ad blocking software. If you don't like them on principal, then avoid those sites. Yes, those are plentiful, but it is possible. How many websites did you browse in 1985?

Re:Captain Obvious to the rescue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427811)

Symbolics.com was my favorite from 1985

why adblock exists (4, Insightful)

myNameIsNotImportant (592769) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427709)

and that is why i use and will continue to use adblock. the advertisers have given me no reason to trust them.

Re:why adblock exists (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428027)

and that is why i use and will continue to use adblock. the advertisers have given me no reason to trust them.

Moreover, I don't create exceptions. If you're part of an ad network, I want no part of that. If you manage to create interesting content which is also an advertisement, I will see it. If you can't manage that, and just want to tape some ads onto the side, you have already failed to face the future. Ad networks have been used to spread too much malware already.

legal recourse for the average person (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427713)

Pretty much everyone guessed they would try to use backward logic, loophole or some other twisted method to do what they actually want, monetinize YOU.

I think the point of DNT was to try and create a legal recourse for regular people. That way we can point the finger and say they are breaking standards and damaging privacy.

Since there actually are ways to block these groups, the tech savy should use those instead. Tunnel you traffik Use adblock, etc.

In Other Words (1)

medcalf (68293) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427717)

Water is wet.

Re:In Other Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427785)

Wait a second. How long have you been sitting on this information??

Re:In Other Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427901)

For a shorter amount of time than you have been sitting on that rubber dick super-glued to the edge of the bathtub, thats for sure.

Re:In Other Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427815)

Only at certain pressure/temperature combinations.

Duh.... (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427755)

From the moment I saw the Do not Track idea come up, I was telling people that advertisers will not car and not honor it. the ONLY way you can set your own do not track is by using adblockers and other tools to strip out their crud. IF they wont honor your do not track, you no longer have to honor seeing their ad's. The only thing they can track by now is your IP address and the browser string if you install all the privacy plugins for firefox or Chrome. it strips their bugs, cookies, etc... and I am waiting for someone to start randomizing the browser string to further make their tracking harder.

Re:Duh.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428407)

Yes - everyone with a functional brain saw through this immediately, but for some reason, a whole bunch of gullible people wanted to believe that DNT was the solution rather than adblock/noscript/ghostery/useragentswitcher/etc.

Did anybody think DNT would be honored? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427769)

That's ridiculous! Why should somebody throw away data just because they are flagged DNT?

Duh (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427777)

>"Advertisers Never Intended To Honor DNT"

Um.... Duh???

Did anyone really expect anything else?

Remedial Grammar... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427791)

It's because these guys, like the political 'elite', have a different dictionary they use. They expect it to apply only to them, but not you. It's full of double talk, loose and opposite interpretations all designed to give them what they want. But when it comes to you, they will use the dictionary and grammar you were raised with to ensure you can't get what you want. They do the same thing in court. Hell, that's why they invented legalese, too.

Color me astonished! (3, Funny)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427823)

Advertisers are ignoring what the user wants and using your data any way they see fit just because they can?

Know what else they're tracking and selling to other advertisers? Your do-not-track setting.

DNT == (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427891)

Most interesting and profitable to track because they don't want to be tracked.

It's like putting a kid in front of a big red button and saying "DON'T TOUCH THAT BIG RED BUTTON". Seriously, did anyone expect anything less?

Unless tracking is made *impossible*... (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427895)

The scum (advertisers, government agencies, et. al.) will continue to use it. Three cheers for ghostery.com.

Re:Unless tracking is made *impossible*... (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427983)

Yup I use Ghostery and recommend it all the time. DNT+ is also a good tool. Right now there's too much tracking going on even though I have "Do Not Track" set on Firefox. I'm now just waiting for it on Chrome.

It's okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427911)

That's okay. I never had the intention of turning off AdBlock or NoScript.

Who was that one clown... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41427915)

That got all upset because Microsoft wanted to put DNT in IE10?

Where is he now?

I want to hear his comments about this.

Gentlemen, (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 2 years ago | (#41427935)

Gentlemen, start your ad blockers.

I'm very carefull with those as I'd like to keep my free ad-financed sites, but this is a short-cut to my blacklist.

As is content-obscuring ads, any kind of noise and excessive blinking.

Re:Gentlemen, (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428263)

I'm very carefull with those as I'd like to keep my free ad-financed sites

Well, two things:

  1. Sites should stick to traditional advertising, the kind that does not track you around the web. Assuming they respect you as much as you respect them.
  2. If sites cannot pay their operating costs without intrusive advertising then we need to build a new system that has lower costs. Peer to peer networking comes to mind.

DNT (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428003)

'Cause I'm D.N.T., I'm dynamite
(D.N.T.) and I'll win the fight
(D.N.T.) I'm a power load
(D.N.T.) watch me explode

I'm dirty, mean and mighty unclean
I'm a wanted man
Public enemy number one
Understand
So lock up your daughter
Lock up your wife
Lock up your back door
And run for your life
The man is back in town
So don't you mess me 'round

It's time for built-in adblocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428007)

It's time to build adblocking into browsers which only blocks ads from sources which do not obey DNT. If the advertisers don't respect the wishes of the users to not track, the browser should not respect the wishes of the advertisers to display adds.

Like they say: (2)

Samuel Dravis (964810) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428095)

It's very difficult to communicate with someone when their livelihood is dependent on not understanding.

In other news... (3, Insightful)

epp_b (944299) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428133)

Water is wet, grass is green and space is big.

Honestly, you have to be quite naive and downright stupid to expect anything else.

If you provide your attacker (advertisers), who have a vested interest in ignoring the flag, with the means to ignore the flag, it's not going to work.

If Alice asks Charlie, a known snooper, to deliver a message to Bob and she expects Charlie not to take a peek, it's going to take more than writing "don't look, Charlie, tee hee hee!" at the top of the message.

This was dumb idea from the very beginning and destined to explode on the launch pad. Besides, browsers already have an in-built functionality to reject third-party cookies, which pretty much takes care of the problem. Yes, there are some clever and covert ways of doing it without cookies (hidden iframes, forms and whatnot), but there's no reason browsers can't reject those on a whitelist basis (some online software will use these hidden elements legitimately).

Complete ignorance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428139)

So they think "do not track" means "do not serve targeted ads"? If they're the same thing, then why are the two concepts expressed differently?

we need to start a PAC, 'browsers unitied' maybe? (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428225)

being able to browse the internet is a form of free speech.

I propose that our PAC lobby congress for its proper free speech rights.

blocking ads is a form of free speech.

please donate to Browsers United so we can get our voices heard.

Re:we need to start a PAC, 'browsers unitied' mayb (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428311)

Blocking ads is censorship and anti-capitalistic

Was DNT Naive Idealism or Politics? (1)

mounthood (993037) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428317)

DNT was never going to work in any practical way. Advertisers weren't going to change because of a voluntary system. So were the proponents naive idealists or playing politics? DNT has made an issue out of data tracking (people++) but also given industry and politicians years of cover (theman++) while it's debated.

I can't help but see this as a near total victory for industry: they haven't actually changed at all. The core issue hasn't been debated in any technical sense (what counts as tracking? how long can data be kept?...) There's little to no discussion about civil rights and privacy. No discussion about security or the legal status of the data (what happens when lawyers want tracking data for a divorce case?).

DNT is an April Fools joke (evil bit) transformed into a mock-policy discussion.

An object lesson... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428323)

... why kindly asking people to be nice to other people's (say, yours) isn't going to work. There's the wilful misinterpreting by the people whose cooperation this hinges on, but that's really but a sideshow. We already knew marketeers are invertebrate pathological compulsive liars so in that respect this cannot be news. The lesson is this: The only way to safeguard data is to not hand it out in the first place.

It should've been obvious from the start, but apparently there are quite a lot hopelessly naïve people Out There.

Still, as an excercise in mass-self deluding and wishful thinking this may be World Record-worthy.

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428339)

I guess it's time for browsers to ship with adblock.

pointing this out in the past = modded down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428381)

There were a bunch of submissions about DNT on /. in the past, and I noticed that anyone pointing out that DNT was idiotic and would be ignored, and the real solution was to stop giving them the data in the first place, was modded down to -1. People didn't want to believe it, I guess. Even if you make it illegal to ignore DNT, that just means the tracking will move offshore, and you will STILL be tracked. The only way around it is to stop giving them data. Stop running their tracking javascripts, stop loading things from their ad servers, stop loading the Facebook "like" button that's plastered all around these days.

Now, here we are. DNT does not, in fact work.

No ads browsing is a fallacy (2, Insightful)

FlynnMP3 (33498) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428383)

Consider the alternative. Would you rather pay for the 10 or so sites that you visit on a daily basis? That's been tried and tried and tried and has always failed so far. Maybe someday in the future the magic combination of micro transactions and transparency will be stumbled upon, but it hasn't happened yet. That, and the advertising forces still believe that advertising works. A lot of people don't care about being advertised to, and in some cases they actually prefer it. So for significantly large values of stupidity or apathy, the advertising companies aren't wrong.

The technically able and the ones who care about being subjected to unhealthy amounts of lowest common denominator dreck have tools they use (Firefox, adblock plus, noscript, ghostery, etc.) to avoid the worst of it. Fortunately for them, their mostly free and unfettered access is payed for mainly by those who don't and the small percentage of overlap between the 2 sets.

Being a geek is fun and in this case healthier.

Look guys, here's the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428453)

We need to spend our time educating and helping "mainstream" users install appropriate plugins / settings to block these clowns outright. Adblock or Adblock Plus, Ghostery, EasyPrivacy Tracking Protection List installed on IE, you name it. There needs to be a consumer response to bad behavior on their part, and not just from technically oriented users. Spread the word and do as much damage to this abusive industry as possible. Don't be swayed by appeals from website operators. We need to force there to be a change in this industry. The source site you're visiting needs to be the source of the advertisements, proxyed from the advertisers. That way they take responsibility for the tracking behaviors advertisers use on their site, and that way good sites can be whitelisted while bad sites are blocked and avoided. The current scenario of "plausible deniability" for website operators to just rent out their customer to advertisers in exchange for content, without taking any real responsibility for the advertiser's behavior won't survive if the advertisers and website operators are put under pressure.

Capitalism wants to make money (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428531)

So they don't care what you want, because they want to run their ever larger, bloated, growing websites.

Unless we get a greed cap.

Trick in the naming (1)

mrprogrammerman (2736973) | more than 2 years ago | (#41428551)

You have to use reverse psychology on the advertisers. It should have been named "Do Track."

dnt standard.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41428635)

the people who devised this standard are morons..

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?