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!

Think Tank's Website Rejects Browser Do-Not-Track Requests

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the at-least-the're-telling-you dept.

Privacy 362

alphadogg writes "The website for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) now tells visitors it will not honor their browsers' do-not-track requests as a form of protest against the technology pushed by privacy groups and parts of the U.S. government. The tech-focused think tank on Friday implemented a new website feature that detects whether visitors have do-not-track features enabled in their browsers and tells them their request has been denied. 'Do Not Track is a detrimental policy that undermines the economic foundation of the Internet,' Daniel Castro, senior analyst at the ITIF wrote in a blog post. 'Advertising revenue supports most of the free content, services, and apps available on the Internet.'"

cancel ×

362 comments

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

Well damn (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506023)

Here I thought awesome people were responsible for most of the finest free offerings of the internet, turns out it was just penis enlargement all along.

Re:Well damn (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#41506115)

Not any more. The same spirit that sysops built and maintained BBSes and the communities that formed around them in the 80s and 90s is what used to drive the web. That sense of fun, enjoyment, contribution, community, education. Where you paid for these things out of your pocket and put in the long hours setting everything up and keeping it running, because you enjoyed the experience and you enjoyed building something that people wanted to use.

Today, every fucking two-bit mommy-blogger has to plaster ads all over their shitty little 5-hits-per-month blog, just to monetize every last possible fucking cent. Spend $5-$100/mo of your own money to fund your project/web-site/whatever? Crazy! Just throw up some ads so that your site looks like shit. And if you can't get rich doing it, fuck it and move on! It's not worth doing if you can't make five cents from it, even if the cost of making that nickel is molesting your site with obnoxious ads.

I spent at least $25k over a period of a dozen years building and maintaining a community for about 100k people. I could have monetized it. I could have charged fees. Subscriptions. Or plastered it in ads. But I didn't. Zero ads. No fees. Even though my site allowed other people to make money and start businesses along the way. But I didn't. Why? Well, it never really even occurred to me. I did it because it was fun. Because I learned things from it. Because it was great to watch so many people form around something *I* did. And then to see it benefit their lives. To see people form friendships (even relationships) out of it. To see cons/gatherings form every year or two out of it. To see external sites around it spring up from other people.

I could have made cash from it, but I didn't. I didn't need to. Not everything has to be done to get rich. Not every fucking inch and second of everything in life has to be done for a buck. And, frankly, fuck these guys for suggesting that it's the only way we get any content on the internet.

Re:Well damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506155)

The internet is infrastructure now, nothing more. Things change, get used to it.

Re:Well damn (5, Insightful)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#41506165)

Thank you for being such a moral person. The world and the internet itself needs more selfless types like yourself. It shouldn't always be about the money.

Re:Well damn (2, Insightful)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about 2 years ago | (#41506477)

And because you didn't make cash and turn it into a going concern. It will dry up and go away just as soon as you lose interest. Let me ask you... Do you also reject street cleaning in your home town? Or are you out there every morning with a broom in the same spirit? Why should the Internet be any different? If somebody wants to try to make money, let them. And if somebody's annoying ads allow them to keep their blog going, then by all means that better than less information and less voice. High horse, get off of it.

Re:Well damn (2, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#41506575)

And because you didn't make cash and turn it into a going concern. It will dry up and go away just as soon as you lose interest.

And this is bad, how?

YOUR high horse, get off it.

--
BMO

Re:Well damn (-1, Troll)

cavreader (1903280) | about 2 years ago | (#41506573)

Well aren't you just a fountain of generosity. Most software architects and developers depend on charging money to make a fucking living. This can include salaries, ad revenue, or any other source of revenue. But that doesn't necessarily mean that charging money to get rich *gasp* it means charging money to pay your mortgage, rent, and other living expenses. Of course this doesn't apply if you are still living with your parents. If you or anyone else wants to sit in the basement and give the fruits of your labor away for free more power to you. Nobody is stopping you. Don't want to see Ad's there are plenty of ways to prevent them from ruining your user experience while surfing the web.

Re:Well damn (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 2 years ago | (#41506589)

First of, I'd like to thank you for whatever content you've put on the web. The old web. Best viewed with NCSA Mosaic.

Anyway, I don't see how a non-commercial web has to exist only if the commercial web doesn't. .edu and (to a lesser extent .org), won't go away if .com is out there. Both can exist at the same time.

And I don't think should try to use DNT to force .com to look like .edu. The fact is, it's not going to. It'll either go out of business, or it'll start charging for content, which means you won't be to access it even with an adblocker.

Return bogus data (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506025)

Can't the browser just give bogus data on request?

That's fine (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506039)

I'll just keep using AdBlock Plus, NoScript, etc. and they won't get me to see any ads at all. If on the other hand they respected my desire not to be tracked, I'd have given some simple unobtrusive ads a chance. They're only shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:That's fine (5, Informative)

couchslug (175151) | about 2 years ago | (#41506137)

"I'll just keep using AdBlock Plus, NoScript, etc."

I'll keep REMINDING OTHERS to use AdBlock Plus, NoScript, etc.

Too bad AdBlock isn't what it used to be (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506527)

By default, since they "souled out" - Case-In-Point:

---

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org]

---

IF you don't want to be tracked, & to get your speed/bandwidth back you paid for (as well as electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well), better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", reliability (vs. DNS poisoning redirection OR being "downed"), & even anonymity (to an extent vs. DNS request logs) + being able to "blow by" what you may feel are unjust blocks (in DNSBL's) & more...

---

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32-bit & 64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 [start64.com]

---

Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):

---

1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites

2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware

3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use

4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers

5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content

6.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution)

7.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).

8.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs)

9.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).

10.) Blocking out TRACKERS

11.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!)

12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).

13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers - whereas the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself...)

14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).

15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.

---

Of course, THIS is NOT going to "go well" with 3 types of people out there online, profiting by advertising & nefarious exploits + more @ YOUR expense as the consumer:

---

A.) Malware makers & the like (botnet masters, etc./et al)

B.) ADVERTISERS - the TRULY offended ones, as it is their "lifeblood" in psychological attack galore, tracking, & more, etc.!

C.) Possibly webmasters (who profit by ad banners, but fail to realize that those SAME adbanners suck away the users' bandwidth/speed, electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O they PAY FOR, plus, adbanners DO get infested with malicious code, & if anyone wants many "examples thereof" from the past near-decade now? Ask!)

---

* There you go... & above all else IF you choose to try it for the enumerated list of benefits I extolled above?

Enjoy the program! However, more importantly, the results in better speed/bandwidth, privacy, reliability, "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs & blowing past DNSBL's) + more, that custom hosts files can yield...

APK

P.S.=> The poster I am replying to found them useful, right couchslug? See here

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"Blocking adverts is trivial. Hosts file, anyone?" - by couchslug (175151) on Saturday September 22, @10:43AM (#41420821)

FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3136869&cid=41420821 [slashdot.org]

... apk

Re:That's fine (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | about 2 years ago | (#41506195)

Indeed. I dont even mind if they detect that and block me. I'm not prepared to accept the implied contract to make my computer fetch ads over my connection. If they then want to drop their end it's fine.

I usually let text-ads through because they're just easy to ignore.

Re:That's fine (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 2 years ago | (#41506609)

So I imagine you don't really care for DNT, right?

You're already running adblockers, what's the point of DNT? Just destroying the ad-funded free content sites.

Re:That's fine THIS IS FINER (by Far) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506583)

AdBlock isn't what it used to be & allows ads by default now since they "souled out":

---

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org]

---

AND, AdBlock doesn't DO as much as custom hosts files do, such as not only block ads, but hosts also block out:

---

A.) Known botnet C & C servers (for better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth")
B.) Known bad sites/servers that serve up malware (for better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth")
C.) Known bad sites/servers that serve up scripted exploits (for better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth")
D.) Known bad DNS servers (for better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth")
E.) Allow you to "hardcode" your favorite sites to avoid downed or DNS-poisoned redirected DNS servers (for better reliability AND to get more speed (faster than calling out to a remote DNS server))

---

Custom Hosts Files are also better on THESE grounds as well:

---

1.) Hosts files also OPERATE MORE EFFICIENTLY THAN ADBLOCK or other browser addons SINCE THEY ARE MERELY A FILTER FOR THE IP STACK ITSELF (operating in Ring 0/RPL 0/kernelmode, vs. Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode where browser addons layer on more complexity in an already SLOWER layer of operations)

2.) Hosts files cover every webbound app, AdBlock doesn't
(such as external to webbrowser based email like outlook express, full outlook, eudora, & other email programs usually based on a DB-mail type system).

3.) Hosts files are easy to edit & directly USER CONTROLLED - Especially by the app in my 'p.s.' below (yes, "shameless plug").

4.) Plus, lastly: AdBlock "ain't what it used to be", & by default" - see links above!

---

* Still - despite the above, I truly *DO* recommend using Custom Hosts files, Firewall rules tables, Browser addons like NoScript, AdBlock, WOT & more/etc/et al, as well as IE 9 TPL's plus native browser features like Opera's "By Site" preferences where you can setup whether to use scripts, plugins, JAVA, & more - by site, not just "pell-mell everywhere, indiscriminately"...

APK

P.S.=> IF you don't want to be tracked, & to get your speed/bandwidth back you paid for (as well as electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well), better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", reliability (vs. DNS poisoning redirection OR being "downed"), & even anonymity (to an extent vs. DNS request logs) + being able to "blow by" what you may feel are unjust blocks (in DNSBL's) & more...

---

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32-bit & 64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 [start64.com]

---

Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):

---

1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites

2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware

3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use

4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers

5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content

6.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution)

7.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).

8.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs)

9.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).

10.) Blocking out TRACKERS

11.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!)

12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).

13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers - whereas the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself...)

14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).

15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.

---

* There you go... & above all else IF you choose to try it for the enumerated list of benefits I extolled above?

Enjoy the program, but more importantly, the results in benefits in speed, security, reliability & more by just using a custom hosts file on a NUMBER of grounds!

Of course, THIS is NOT going to "go well" with 3 types of people out there online, profiting by advertising & nefarious exploits + more @ YOUR expense as the consumer:

---

A.) Malware makers & the like (botnet masters, etc./et al)

B.) ADVERTISERS - the TRULY offended ones, as it is their "lifeblood" in psychological attack galore, tracking, & more, etc.!

C.) Possibly webmasters (who profit by ad banners, but fail to realize that those SAME adbanners suck away the users' bandwidth/speed, electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O they PAY FOR, plus, adbanners DO get infested with malicious code, & if anyone wants many "examples thereof" from the past near-decade now? Ask!)

---

... apk

Re:That's fine THIS IS FINER (by Far) (1)

yacc143 (975862) | about 2 years ago | (#41506695)

Well, adblock OTOH can work way more fine tuned, e.g. it can block only specific url pattern, as sites have started to offer unwanted content on the same hostname that the wanted content is hosted.

My personal combination is NoScript, Adblock+ and Ghostery.

Btw, Windows 8 hosts file are automatically reseted by the system, and using some binary that I would have to run in wine to edit /etc/hosts sounds fishy to me.

Aha! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506043)

So they're afraid they aren't going to make all the money they have been making with advertisements.

My take on this: go get a real job.

Re:Aha! (1, Troll)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#41506057)

Yeah, go get a real job, Slashdot editors!

Okay... bad example.

Re:Aha! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506083)

Not a bad example, though. All they do is approving the submissions of some other people that don't get a single dollar from what they send to the site.

So they make money of other people's work. True or false?

Yeah, well.. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506065)

Joke's on them. I run NoScript.

Re:Yeah, well.. (5, Insightful)

Bigbutt (65939) | about 2 years ago | (#41506203)

Joke's on them. I don't think I've ever been to their site.

[John]

Re:Yeah, well.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506651)

Joke's on me. I'd never heard if them before this story. Now that name is wasting some of my memory.

Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (5, Informative)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about 2 years ago | (#41506075)

We don't deny the right for any site owner to do advertising. If we don't want to see the adds, we can stop going on the site. But what's not normal is tracking visitors across multiple sites and without their consent or knowledge. I recommend everyone to install the ghostery pluggin, just to see how far this has gone (eg: so many sites are displaying trackers from 3rd parties).

Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506095)

We don't deny the right for any site owner to do advertising. If we don't want to see the adds, we can stop going on the site. But what's not normal is tracking visitors across multiple sites and without their consent or knowledge. I recommend everyone to install the ghostery pluggin, just to see how far this has gone (eg: so many sites are displaying trackers from 3rd parties).

And be careful where you approve scripts, look at the HTML of this site for instance..

Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (4, Insightful)

bengoerz (581218) | about 2 years ago | (#41506125)

It's ironic that Ghostery identifies 6 trackers on this very Slashdot page.

Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506241)

Do you even know what ironic means?

Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#41506269)

Yeah, it's like when it rains on your wedding day.

Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506393)

"Ironic" is people installing Ghostery thinking they are sticking it to the web trackers and not realizing that Evidon (Ghostery's owner) is tracking them through Ghostery for the purpose of selling reports to advertisers on where their ads are displayed.

Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506199)

The value of those ad's that are served are based on how much they can be sold for.
By knowing more about your users, the ad's can be targeted. If targeted they are more valuable.
Therefore by turning tracking off, you reduce the potential value the ad space, and in turn revenue of site owners.
By knowing your browsing patterns across sites, advertisers can show you ad's you are more likely to want to see.
And there are endless ways to hide the behaviour from a technology standpoint. If you are concerned about leaving a trail across internet, stop using it.
-- An ironically named anonymous coward

Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (0)

Captain Hook (923766) | about 2 years ago | (#41506605)

They already have reasonable information about audiences without needing to track individuals across sites.

For example, on this site, advertise geek stuff, gadgets, programming languages, OS's etc.Car Sites, advertise car stuff.

For the most part, websites have a self-selecting audience so you already have the ability to provide ads at people who are likely to find particular categories useful.

Tracking only becomes useful if you are a very large catch all website or ad provider looking for an edge over the competition.

Provide ads for the website audience, not the individual.

Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506243)

If we don't want to see the adds, we can stop going on the site.

"We" have learned spell and use proper grammar.

Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 2 years ago | (#41506271)

I use the plant transformation spell. Which is your favorite?

Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506331)

If we don't want to see the adds, we can stop going on the site.

"We" have learned spell and use proper grammar.

...and "pluggins"

Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506483)

Reading your post many will note you used "adds" instead of "ads" and a certain number of those will wonder if it was deliberate or subconscious use being as too many of today's "ads" are "adds" rather like picking up ticks or leeches as you move about in nature, some of which give more "adds" via infection etc or call out for their fellows to join them.

Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 2 years ago | (#41506661)

Playing devil's advocate here: Tracking ads allow lesser and offbeat websites to exist.

Otherwise, the only nonpay-content websites you could have would be those directly related to a money-making ad category (like computers and mobile phones).

Tracking ads let you have a blog on esoteric subjects, and yet your visitors will still get relevant ads.

Example: I get a lot of server and webhosting ads, which are highly relevant for me. On the other hand, you don't like any ads, so you block them. No problem, right?

Foundation of the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506077)

If only there were an alternative to hosting content for free...

Re:Foundation of the internet? (5, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41506103)

or how about pay for your own fucking bandwidth? I pay for mine.. You pay for yours. You don't have the right to throw up a pile of shit with ads and expect me to hobble my computer and experience to make you money. It's not cable tv.

Re:Foundation of the internet? (2)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about 2 years ago | (#41506219)

You don't have the right to throw up a pile of shit with ads

I can understand why this sort of activity is disliked — I don't browse without AdBlock Plus, and now will investigate Ghostery too — but, I would have thought that, within the bounds of the law, their webserver, it's their prerogative to host what they want / construct their site how they want?

If I want to put up a whole load of flashing banners when you visit my site (I don't, but, if I did...), and that clogs up your bandwidth, that's my prerogative, just as it is your prerogative not to visit the site?

For the site at question here, it's simple — I'm not going to be visiting. But I do think it's their prerogative to serve up poor content with ads, if that's what they choose to put on their webserver.

Re:Foundation of the internet? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#41506255)

That's true.. but that right ends when the data from that server enters the NIC of someone else's computer.. Just as they control their hardware, I control mine and they have no right to dictate there.

Re:Foundation of the internet? (4, Interesting)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about 2 years ago | (#41506293)

I control mine

Absolutely. I would argue against any attempt to prevent someone from running AdBlock Plus or the like — filtering what you allow onto your computer (whether filtering what you ask for from someone else or, less usefully, asking for it and then not displaying it) is absolutely your prerogative too.

DNT is a slightly challenging use case, to my mind. As I understand it, it means that I request everything on a page, but also send an additional request that some things do not happen with my data. I'm not actually filtering anything, or not requesting certain parts of the page — I'm relying, even trusting, the content owner to behave in accordance with my wishes. Which is partly why I'm not giving up ABP any time soon, just as a promise from everyone on the Internet not to do something I don't want them to do in terms of accessing my server would not lead me to dropping my firewall.

Re:Foundation of the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506361)

Well then maybe you should stop reading Slashdot, because by requesting a page from Slashdot, you get a page with an ad on it! Oh no! Sound the fucking alarm!

Re:Foundation of the internet? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506337)

How the fuck did you get modded Insightful? You're a fucking troll and an idiot. Go enjoy your extremely limited ad-free internet where only rich people host websites and the only opinions you get to hear are those who have the money to spread it, just like the mainstream media and *gasp* cable TV! Idiot.

Re:Foundation of the internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506353)

"Hobble your computer?"

Are you still using a 486 over dial up? Because even a normal family PC with standard broadband can handle ads without taking a hit now.

Re:Foundation of the internet? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506389)

Bull.. Everything, including(especially) Slashdot is is much faster when their ad servers are blocked. It's actually very dramatic. Sorry Slashdot, you gotta fix that if you want me to see your ads.

One question: (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | about 2 years ago | (#41506079)

Who's funding this group, when it comes down to it?

Okay, two questions:

Does anyone really give a shit what this particular group has to say?

Re:One question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506167)

Since its founding, ITIF’s research has been supported by technology companies such as IBM, Cisco and eBay, trade associations such as the Information Technology Industry Council, labor unions such as the Communications Workers of America, and grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, and the Nathan Cummings Foundation.[8][9][10][11][12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Technology_and_Innovation_Foundation [wikipedia.org]

Re:One question: (3, Informative)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41506179)

Does anyone really give a shit what this particular group has to say?

Your elected representatives, who look to outfits like this guidance in turning file sharing in to a crime akin to detonating nail bombs on crowded busses.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Debate-over-Internet-piracy-legislation-heats-up-2576620.php [sfgate.com]

Re:One question: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506303)

Piracy =! Ad serving. Yes. Really.

Do Not Track != Do Not Advertise (4, Insightful)

bengoerz (581218) | about 2 years ago | (#41506087)

It is possible to advertise online without tracking users. It may not be quite as profitable, but it served the Internet well in the early days.

Besides, you don't need tracking to know that Slashdot's audience is full of nerds who will buy open their wallets to companies like ThinkGeek, NewEgg, etc.

Re:Do Not Track != Do Not Advertise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506669)

It may not be quite as profitable, but it served the Internet well in the early days.

In the early days, the internet did not have advertising on it.

Who noticed? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506099)

Given that the message depends on JS, most people who set DNT are either incredibly naive, or block JS too.

The internet worked just fine... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506101)

The internet (spelled with a small 'i' despite my spell checker) worked just fine before the economic discount-superstore model was imposed upon it in the mid 90s.so if you don't mind ITIF, I'm gonna go start my own internet... with star trek and porn.

Re:The internet worked just fine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506315)

The internet (spelled with a small 'i' despite my spell checker)

Your spell checker therefore sucks.

do not track != do not advertise (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506107)

Do Not Track does not mean Do Not Advertise. It just means don't collect my personal data from every site I visit and form a profile of my habits.

Honestly, from the way these people are talking you'd think advertising never worked in the past when it wasn't possible to do that.

Re:do not track != do not advertise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506365)

This is why as a system builder, I always install Ghostery when fixing customers PCs. Other people should be doing this too.

Re:do not track != do not advertise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506685)

Ghostery is a tracker. It sends data about which ads your system requests back where that info is sold to advertisers for the purpose of establishing which ads are how effective.

Stupidity on ITIF part (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506117)

Do Not Track essentially enables people who are concerned about privacy to support the web page owners by still being targets of advertising. To reject their request means "we don't want you looking at our ads" and pushes these people to simply use adblock. Mind that people who are already blocking ads have no use from DNT.

Re:Stupidity on ITIF part (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506607)

Wait, there's more to it. The stupidity just doesn't end with that. If they start serving pages stating "we don't give a fuck about your privacy, we will stalk you, no matter what", I can see this backfire in a spectacular way.

This kind of arrogant "in your face" stupidity is what seriously piss people off, it's something very tangible in an world where people doing shady stuff rely on it being too abstract for anyone with any say to care. With that comes the possibility that the people this kind of outfit doesn't want to wake up does just that. It's the kind of attitude that leads to regulation, legislation and ultimately ends in fines or prison terms.

I say, if they want to attempt this kind of stunt, I'm pretty sure "Steelie Neelie" will take out her cane again. Let's see how arrogant this asshole is then.

Remember, while there might be no law against "tracking", there are indeed laws against stalking. "Cyber-" such, no less.

Good Riddence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506123)

Good. Get off the web. Someone better will take your visitors. The internet was not originally built for hard to disrupt communication, not selling out.

Bad TFA (3, Insightful)

mrsam (12205) | about 2 years ago | (#41506133)

There was one crucial piece of information missing from TFA: exactly why would a non-insignificant fraction of the population in large would even care that this particular think-tank's piddly web site exists? It would be news if say, some major national bank's web site blocked visitors who've enabled the do-not-track header. That, I can understand, would be news. But...

1) Who is ITIF, and

2) Who cares about their web site?

As soon as someone explains that, we can move ahead to the next step.

The economic foundation of the internet? (5, Insightful)

Let's All Be Chinese (2654985) | about 2 years ago | (#41506145)

The economic foundation of the internet has nothing to do with advertising. The current state of the world wide web does, but they're different things. For a supposedly technology-focused think-tank, I'd expect them to understand that difference.

The economic foundation of the internet is the advantage gained from interconnecting networks. You care for your bit of network, yet have access to everyone else's too. In return you carry other networks' traffic just as they carry yours. As such, the internet's foundations are those of "being a cooperative".

The world wide web, now, that's something different. It's the conceptual web made out of various parties' "content" linked together. Since it can be used to show pictures and text from elsewhere, advertising is easily added to many a page. Advertising is used to fund large parts of that, and it's an interesting exercise to imagine what the www would be like without the advertising income. There'd be many fewer websites, especially since many of them currently survive by the grace of advertising income, even exist for the sole purpose of attracting "clicks" to be sold to advertisers. Those would go away right quick.

What would be left? Discuss.

Economic Foundation of the Internet? (5, Insightful)

iCEBaLM (34905) | about 2 years ago | (#41506173)

The internet is already paid for. Every home user and business pays their ISP, every small ISP pays their upstream, every large ISP pays to run their lines and to peer, etc.

Advertising on the internet is a huge assumption. It is assumed that people will:

1. See the ads.
2. Click on them if they're interested.
3. Buy product if they're interested.

There is no obligation for anyone to do any of these. No contract, written, social, or otherwise, requires people to even see the ads, and as this failed business model dwindles, companies have started tracking users and harvesting information as a business model, simply because they can.

Where do these overblown assholes get off telling us it's the Economic Foundation of the Internet?

Re:Economic Foundation of the Internet? (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 2 years ago | (#41506215)

Well, I agree with them that a lot of content is paid for by ads.

Look at TV or newspaper or websites or mobile apps, a lot of them have ads. Even if you've already payed for it.

Why ? Because it makes it cheaper for the user, which lowers the barrier to entry.

Hell, if you have a loyalty program card from a store they use that to track you too even though you are buying stuff from them.

What I don't agree with is they think they need tracking. That is just BS. You can do most of what they do without tracking.

Re:Economic Foundation of the Internet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506615)

Do your newspaper track you??

Re:Economic Foundation of the Internet? (3, Insightful)

CrashNBrn (1143981) | about 2 years ago | (#41506381)

That's not the main purpose of Advertising. Product Awareness is the KEY purpose of Advertising. And most people wont necessarily even realize it. When the time comes that you need to purchase product-type-x, unless you go with whatever is the cheapest, you are more likely to buy something by a Brand that you've seen before --- whether that was an Internet Ad or Television, Billboard, whatever.

(pl0s one Info8mative) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506177)

but now they're abysmal sales and Channel, you might Clearly. The8e However I don'7 Distro is done Here the wind appeared Are there? Let's to place a paper and Juliet 40,000

This thinktank gives me the URGE TO DEFECATE (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506189)

in their tank.

Tracking not required (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 2 years ago | (#41506191)

Do these people really believe that advertising only works without tracking ?

Most of the things they do now, they can do without tracking:

https://air.mozilla.org/tracking-not-required/ [mozilla.org]

Re:Tracking not required (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506405)

Tracking has never been required to serve up advertising, ever. unless targeted advertising is the goal, in which visitors should be allowed to decline this activity, in fact the ludicrous EU cookie law, if written by politicians that know how the internet actually worked, would have worded it to mention trackers not cookies

Stating the obvious (3, Insightful)

Golden_Rider (137548) | about 2 years ago | (#41506201)

From the link:

However, privacy advocates do not like this so they have been pushing for the creation and implementation of a Do Not Track standard. The problem is that if users are not tracked, then websites cannot deliver targeted advertising. Instead, websites would only be able to use non-targeted advertising which does not generate as much revenue.

Well... yeah. That's the whole point.

If your business idea needs the revenue from targeted advertising and the revenue from NON-targeted advertising would mean you'd have to close down, then your business idea is not good enough. It does NOT mean that everybody else has to endure being tracked so that you can make more money. Of course, you're free to prevent whoever you do not like from visiting your website. But your sense of entitlement ("we cannot have user privacy because *I* deserve more money!") is wrong.

Not that I think those "do not track" settings ever will work, because they rely on the bad guys cooperating, and advertisers clearly have shown over the years that they will do ANYTHING to get around advertising restrictions. But the general idea (users should be able to decline targeted advertising) is good.

Re:Stating the obvious (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506679)

However, privacy advocates do not like this so they have been pushing for the creation and implementation of a Do Not Track standard. The problem is that if users are not tracked, then websites cannot deliver targeted advertising. Instead, websites would only be able to use non-targeted advertising which does not generate as much revenue.

However, humanists do not like this so they have been pushing for the liberation of slaves. The problem is, if slaves are not traded and exploited, then cotton plantations cannot use cheap labor. Instead, cotton farmers would have to pay their workers, which does not generate as much revenue.

News at 11 (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41506205)

Think-tank known for its strong stance on turning the Internet in to a locked-down shopping mall takes strong stance against technology designed to protect users. No-one notices.

In other news, the KKK blocks users from predominantly black/latino areas, leaving them with on average 1600 hits per month (down from 1617 hits per month).

Then I just wont go to their site ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506207)

Its just that simple.
The corporations and the governments are waking a sleeping giant that will dwarf the previous one!

The correct response (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506211)

I like that they refuse to serve their content, rather than simply disregard the DNT and serve the content anyway. If all sites that disagreed with DNT did this, we'd end up with a split internet of people who want to make money by selling on your personal data (i.e. host third party surveillance scripts) and those who want to make money in other ways (or, you know, just put up cool stuff for free).

"Free" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506223)

Looking at the ITIF's post on DNT. I love how the word free is thrown about even though those "free" products aren't really free when we are being advertised to and our behaviors tracked. In fact, I don't know if the price we are paying is worth calling any of those products free.

Solution: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506225)

Don't like people blocking your tracking?
Easy peazy, you give them an incentive to allow it.

warning, this website contains malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506233)

Or some such, is what browsers should pop up instead of the website in question when they try to do dishonest and unethical things like tracking users. This push by "the powers that be" for having everything and everyone's business out in the open for them to data mine at will, without paying us for the privilege of using our data for their purposes, is getting pretty darn obvious.

Subscriptions? Donations? (2)

TheStonepedo (885845) | about 2 years ago | (#41506251)

Once a site delivering free content is popular enough to have significant operating overhead, it's probably worth the effort and money to formally organize the content provider as a for-profit or non-profit entity.
The local newspaper in my town of approximately 100 thousand sells subscriptions to readers who want more than a fixed quota of articles per month.
Wikipedia has fundraisers.
Both of these free content providers have found ways to fund their efforts without using targeted ads.
Suggesting that ad revenue will disappear without personalized ads seems to overlook the fact that many people are willing to pay a fair price for content instead of expecting ads to support their mooching.

Re:Subscriptions? Donations? (1)

Rossman (593924) | about 2 years ago | (#41506465)

Newpapers use targeted ads, just not to the degree as online. There are ads for rich guys in the business papers and ads for blue collar dudes in the papers with the "sunshine girls" on page 2.

Strange ... (1)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#41506257)

Advertising is supporting the TV show I'm watching right now, and the newspaper I read this morning ...

Neither of them were tracking me.

Re:Strange ... (1)

Jaktar (975138) | about 2 years ago | (#41506561)

They are not tracking you, yet. Nielsen is opt in.
http://www.nielsen.com/content/corporate/global/en.html [nielsen.com]

But then there's "Smart TV"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2117493/Samsungs-latest-TV-sets-built-cameras-spark-concerns.html [dailymail.co.uk]

How long until it becomes monetized?

Reject their rejection by disabling javascript (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506261)

Browsing http://www.itif.org/ [itif.org] with noscript installed or javascript disabled, I don't even see their rejection of my DNT header unless and until I enable javascript for the site.

Undermines the economic foundation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506273)

"Do Not Track is a detrimental policy that undermines the economic foundation of the Internet"

No, it's a policy that undermines the ability to steal peoples' identification information and track their movements on the Internet so that data can be sold to marketers and handed over to government to build informational databases about its citizens so that they can be more effectively oppressed.

BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506279)

What a load of BS. Tracking is not the same as displaying advertising. "Do Not Track" doesn't prevent advertising.

Haven't seen anything yet . . . (2)

alecto (42429) | about 2 years ago | (#41506281)

. . . from a site that goes out of its way to block adblocking users that I couldn't live without. It seems to me that those running sites who do this sort of thing vastly overestimate the value of their "content."

the good ole days... (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | about 2 years ago | (#41506291)

'Do Not Track is a detrimental policy that undermines the economic foundation of the Internet,' Daniel Castro

Maybe if that 'economic foundation' were undermined, the Internet would, once again, become a useful tool. I remember, all too well, the day that AOL opened the floodgates. The ads back then where simple, to the point and less obtrusive.

Okay, I'll say it first.... "Get off my lawn."

No it doesn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506305)

> The website for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) now tells visitors it will not honor their browsers' do-not-track requests

No it doesn't.

http://www.itif.org

Works just fine - I'm using Firefox 15.0.1 on Windows XP

I followed the instructions at http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-i-turn-do-not-track-feature

And the itif site works just fine.

Did I do something wrong?

Join the fight against copyright as well (1)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#41506311)

I applaud your courageous and independent minded decision to keep the web free. The government intrusion that is DNT is unjustified and surely will stopp all "technological innovation and productivity" on the web. We must have policies the "boost innovation and encourage the widespread 'digitization' of the economy" which "is critical to ensuring robust economic growth." It is true that "the innovation economy has become increasingly important" and we cannot allow "opposition to it from special interests" such as greedy copyright and patent holders, or even the pesky privacy concerns of the peasants, to stop that growth.

Indeed we have a digital economy, and, as has been shown again and again, those that hold their IP too close to their chests not only damage innovation and economy, but also themselves. Look at Google who has expanded the smart phone industry exponentially by using open source. Look at HP who has open sourced WebOS. Much of Apples fortunes has been built on open source. Local governments has released that the closed source textbook is bleeding the taxpayers dry, so has gone for open source textbook. Firms that open clearly have a competitive advantage. Users that are closed and do not share personal data clearly damage the web.

ITIF, you are obviously very wise people who know better than we do. You obviously have big penises and big breasts and are therefore best suited to tell us, the lower 99% of the consuming proletariat, what to do. So I encourage you to continue to show you superiority by further courageous moves in the progress of unbounded innovation. Make your books all digital and allow all of us the opportunity to read your wisdom, not just those who are old and have money or go to the library. The old are not going to be the innovators, and the young only know how to download free stuff. So make you wisdom accessible to all, as you want to make our personal details accesible to all. Do not just publish chapter 1, but all of your incredible mind changing orgasmic words from on high so we can all know you infinite enlightenment and become person who know our place in your perfect world.

Wrong. Free Software is the fundation of the 'net (5, Insightful)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | about 2 years ago | (#41506333)

This is one area where we are not given enough credit, but the Internet as we know is here thanks to Free Software.

Sure, most people doesn't realize this, and of those that do, most won't accept it, but it's still the truth. What allowed the internet to grow so big? Do you think Google would exist if they had to pay an expensive Unix license for every machine they own? Sure, they might be able to afford it now, but they didn't years ago, and they would have never gotten this far. Even now it would be a huge hit on their wallet. Take the Internet as it exists right now. Remove GNU/Linux and *BSD, Bind, Apache, SSH, MySQL/PostgreSQL, PHP, Perl, Python, nginx, squid, rsync. I can go on and on. Now remove 90% of all web apps out there. Remove Wordpress, Joomla, and just about every other CMS. Now take the client side. Remove KHTML (And with that webkit, and therefore Safari and Chrome), remove Firefox. Remove Android. What are we left with? I think if you remove all Free Software from the Internet, aside from the fact that there would be no root DNS servers and most of the routers would be down, and what servers are still intact? microsoft.com? I'm pretty sure even they relay on Free Software.

So, Fuck off ITIF. It's not advertisement. Many people think content should be pay for, that content couldn't exist without advertisement, well,you are using the most advanced infrastructure ever created to create and serve your content, and the infrastructure was created for free. Certainly we can create some GPL'd cat pictures, porn and tech articles to replace your stupid content. Please go away.

All the pro-advertisement self-entitled idiots are using trillions of dollars of infrastructure the community created for free, and they go "But our dong jokes are priceless. We need money!". Well fuck you.

Re:Wrong. Free Software is the fundation of the 'n (1)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | about 2 years ago | (#41506697)

You switch from Free (as in speech) to free (as in beer) halfway through your post, greatly weakening your point. The creation of all of that software was not free. It was, in fact, very expensive. People paid for it for various reasons: altruism, idealism, and, yes, to make a profit. Not to mention that the physical infrastructure, without which none of that software would matter, was (and is) very, very costly.

That's not to say I agree with ITIF's statement regarding DNT. DNT requests should be honored (although I don't think sites should be forced to serve those who select DNT). But I have no problem with sites advertising. In fact, I'm glad of it, because it means I've got access to Google, Slashdot, the Washington Post, many webcomics, and hundreds of other sites that probably would not exist otherwise.

I'm glad other sites can get by without advertising. Wikipedia survives on donations and not advertising (except for the self-advertising on the site), and so do a couple of my other daily-read sites. But I'd lose access to a lot of information without web ads.

But cash is okay? (1)

gruber76 (79421) | about 2 years ago | (#41506339)

If the argument is that tracking users furthers commerce and getting in the way of it is Luddite, shouldn't they start by railing against the evils of cash?

Ignore fools like Daniel Castro (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506363)

Slashdot should ignore people like Daniel Castro, and thus avoid linking posts by people like him on this forum. By linking this person's very poorly written drivel, Slashdot is giving him credibility. Here is my major complaint with his story: There is not a single fact cited in this person's article. There are dumbfounding statements such as: "The problem is that if users are not tracked, then websites cannot deliver targeted advertising." This statement is just wrong if you hold to even a very lax scientific standard. The logical connections that he makes are threadless: DNT will lead to collapse of the internet.

The article reminds me of the type of absurd argument that high school policy debaters put forth. But at least in that case, those high schoolers are forced to find facts to support their claims.
 

Browsers need to fix tracking (5, Insightful)

mounthood (993037) | about 2 years ago | (#41506417)

Browsers need to fix tracking, like they did for popups and malware sites. Aggressive technical measures can bring tracking networks in line. Tracking networks pay popular websites to include their crap and then sell the data they collect. Make it a pain for websites that include 300 tracking networks and we'll be attacking the money.

At the very least browsers should:
* Lockdown the user-agent string
* Force plugins (like flash) to either not have cookies (or storage), or let the browser control any tracking
* Raise awareness by warning users when they are obviously being tracked
* Limit the number of cookies generated by visiting a single web page -- don't let one page lead to 300 cookies from hundreds of domains

Here's an idea: the browser won't download anything from any 3rd party domain, unless the primary website asserts responsibility for the 3rd party domain (either in source or headers). No website would want to take responsibility for an advertising network, much less a tracking network. Advertisers would be under enormous scrutiny to not track people, because their clients would be the ones getting sued.

Here's another idea: Mozilla runs it's own adblock-style blocking list. Companies would have to convince Mozilla they're not tracking people, and possible sign legal agreements to enforce it. Mozilla could simply block any site they don't think is acting honorably. If they collected info on 0 byte images they'd know most of the worst players right away.

Another idea: browsers could auto-change identities every 10 minutes; like switching to a new profile. If cookies from active tabs were saved it would eliminate 80% of the problems without the user having to do anything.

This is Not Hard (2)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#41506419)

Run Noscript and Better Privacy. Set cookies to be accepted and then deleted when the browser closes. Set Better Privacy to delete flash and other more persistent tracking tags when the browser closes. Only enable javascript temporarily on pages you really want to see -- most of the time I'll see the page is not usable without javascript and just close that window. Want to serve me a click through ad? Fine, I'll just close that window. There isn't a page on the internet that I need to see, and I certainly don't care to visit one that wants to jam adverts down my throat. And yet I just bought some more stuff from a Google-served unobtrusive text ad the other day. If Google can appeal to someone as ad-hostile as I am, is it any wonder they're doing so well when everyone else is apparently circling the drain?

Re:This is Not Hard (1)

Trilkin (2042026) | about 2 years ago | (#41506665)

Addendum: Also enable Javascript on pages that require it for the features to actually function (some banking sites, a LOT of gaming-related sites with build calculators and what not, etc.) With NoScript, you can whitelist by domain, so this isn't really that difficult.

It should work both ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41506525)

If Mr Castro is willing to send me daily updates on his personal life I might reconsider my stance on tracking by default. If not, it's DNT+, AdBlock and NoScript for me..

What's the big deal? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 2 years ago | (#41506553)

Just set your browser to only have session cookies. Why this big DNT thing?

Or do people think even that is too much? How will you even log in?

DNT != Do Not Advertise (2)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 2 years ago | (#41506563)

What's funny is that DNT doesn't say "Don't send me advertisements.". They're just throwing a tantrum, threatening to take all their toys and go home if they can't do absolutely anything they want any time they want. I say treat 'em like you'd treat the other 2-year-old on the playground who does that: shrug and go play with everybody else and their toys. Ain't worth puttin' up with the brat's drama.

Voluntary framework (1)

dumky2 (2610695) | about 2 years ago | (#41506567)

Do we live in a free society or what?
If you are vegetarians, don't eat in a restaurant that doesn't serve vegetarian dishes.
Some non-vegetarian restaurants may indulge your preference and prepare a special dish for you, but don't think you are entitled to this favor.
The same goes for privacy preferences, and preferences for other features (more security, more storage, more content, etc.).

I think it is great that browsers (and apps and OSes) are adding capabilities to communicate user preferences (I just wish the DNT flag's meaning would actually be defined before it is implemented). But it is silly and destructive to want to force service providers to abide by them.
If lots of users have a given preference, services will seek ways of serving that need economically and competitively.

One proposal that I think would work for many websites would be to charge people for removing ads or removing tracking or removing data collection. Ads are the source of revenue for many free (0 dollars) services that we enjoy, and targeted ads command a premium, the service provider has to find a way to offset the revenue loss if the service is to remain available.
Do you see other workable proposals?

Anyways, it's great that some websites choose to stand their ground and make the deal clear to their users. We don't give you our content unless you agree to this deal.

Really? (1)

DougInNavarre (2736877) | about 2 years ago | (#41506625)

From the ITIF website... "It is my hope that with this alert ITIF will be able to remind people how easy it would be for sites to block users who enable Do Not Track..." I really can't see any website that makes direct revenue from users would block access. Would Amazon block me if I have DNT enabled? Would they risk losing a sale on that new plasma TV over $0.03 of indirect revenue. Sure, the Amazon example is a bit extreme but seriously. I can't see any legitimate website blocking a user, and possible direct revenue stream (subscribing to, or buying from, etc) just because they are running plugins. Is the corporate world really that insane? Have they totally forgot in the long run we are the customer and ultimately the revenue stream. Can't they see that now matter how many ads they force on us if no one is looking THERE'S NO MONEY?!?!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?