Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo Will Ignore IE 10's "Do Not Track"

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the tsa-logic dept.

Yahoo! 360

dsinc writes "And so it begins... Yahoo has made it official: it won't honor the Do Not Track request issued by Internet Explorer 10. Their justification? '[T]he DNT signal from IE10 doesn't express user intent" and "DNT can be easily abused.'" Wonder what percentage of users would rather be tracked by default.

cancel ×

360 comments

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

Shocking (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787029)

See now, the trouble here is that all of these privacy settings rely on corporate "good will", when there is no such thing.

Really, the only way to ensure your privacy is extreme paranoia. Sorry.

Re:Shocking (5, Funny)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41787053)

What's even more shocking is that there's people still using Yahoo.

Re:Shocking (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787085)

No, not at all. The real shock is anyone thinking that Microsoft isn't the one to blame here.

They didn't follow the standard, again, and so they knew the switch in IE would be ignored.

Re:Shocking (-1, Troll)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41787191)

Seriously?!

MS is the bad guy from giving a finger to the spammers? I never seen a standard where compulsive stalking must be enabled agaisntt a user's wishes. Is there anything that wont get them bashed on this site?

Re:Shocking (4, Insightful)

captain_sweatpants (1997280) | about 2 years ago | (#41787259)

You seem to have neglected to read this bit, so I'll repeat it for you

They didn't follow the standard, again

Anyway it's a pointless standard so the argument is moot. A voluntary standard that gets in the way of profits is a standard that will never be followed.

Re:Shocking (3, Informative)

tofubeer (1746800) | about 2 years ago | (#41787295)

They do 100% the opposite of what the draft "standard" says...

http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#determining [w3.org]

"A user agent must have a default tracking preference of unset (not enabled) unless a specific tracking preference is implied by the decision to use that agent. For example, use of a general-purpose browser would not imply a tracking preference when invoked normally as "SuperFred", but might imply a preference if invoked as 'SuperDoNotTrack' or 'UltraPrivacyFred'."

IE 10 does not imply a tracking preference.

To be fair this was changed recently, but on the other hand Microsoft has had plenty of time to change the default setting. The could have the browser start the first time on a page that let's the user change the setting and be complaint.

Re:Shocking (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787503)

That is a VERY recent change to the standard which was put in AFTER MS gave users an option which was well within the standard. Advertisers realised they would be fucked so they changed the standard.

Re:Shocking (1, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41787561)

That is a VERY recent change to the standard which was put in AFTER MS gave users an option which was well within the standard. Advertisers realised they would be fucked so they changed the standard.

Mod up. Advertisers also made sure Apache ignored it by default as well and frankly bribed them and threatened to hose websites using their network and only supporting IIS unless they caved in.

Re:Shocking (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787087)

Google's results aren't exactly good these days, and they've proven themselves to be far more at the chaotic evil end of the spectrum when it comes to personal data.

And let's face it, nobody knows about DuckDuckGo.

Re:Shocking (1)

KaoticEvil (91813) | about 2 years ago | (#41787365)

I resent your statement that Evil can be "chaotic"... Now Kaotic, otoh....

Re:Shocking (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#41787377)

Google's results aren't exactly good these days, and they've proven themselves to be far more at the chaotic evil end of the spectrum when it comes to personal data.

And let's face it, nobody knows about DuckDuckGo.

I guess the name isn't exactly helpful in convincing users to use it.
But then, I think nobody knows about Startpage either.

Re:Shocking (1, Informative)

TrueSpeed (576528) | about 2 years ago | (#41787437)

Google's results aren't exactly good these days, and they've proven themselves to be far more at the chaotic evil end of the spectrum when it comes to personal data.

And let's face it, nobody knows about DuckDuckGo.

And let's face it, nobody gives a shit about DuckDuckGo except paranoid idiots. These are the same idiots that have no problem freeloading on services provided by Google, etc because they think they're entitled. They foolishly think they're being clever by going out of their way by using services like DuckDuckGo or browser plugins to cover their tracks, but what they fail to realize, in their infinite wisdom, is that they think they've already been proactively tagged and tracked by their ISP and cell phone carrier who sell their information to the highest bidder.

So, the next time you think you're being clever by using some 'alternate' search engine because it gives you a false sense of security of not being tracked, be sure to also cancel your ISP and Smartphone contracts and stay off the grid otherwise you're just living in a fantasy world.

Re:Shocking (5, Interesting)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about 2 years ago | (#41787459)

proactively tagged and tracked by their ISP and cell phone carrier who sell their information to the highest bidder.

In the civilised world this is illegal and the mobile networks are legally required to provide proper privacy. In fact, employees occasionally go to jail for breaching telecom privacy rules. It does happen in some countries but that is an exception. There are plenty of us who would spend money to have that kind of privacy guarantee extended to internet connections.

Re:Shocking (5, Informative)

TrueSpeed (576528) | about 2 years ago | (#41787547)

Verizon must operate in a non civilised world then. Verizon proactively collects and sells your information unless you log into their portal and turn off the service - providing you can find it. And Verizon isn't the only one - they all do it. Why would any company turn down such as easy way to make money that requires virtually no effort on their part.

Re:Shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787119)

IE users, put in the restricted sites zone: *.yahoo.com, *.yimg.com.

I guess Marissa Mayer wants Yahoo to be known as the site that ignores do not track.

Re:Shocking (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787137)

I don't know about you, but I'd eat Marissa Mayer's shit. Uhh, for the bacteria, I mean!

Re:Shocking (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787169)

You forgot *.yui.com, and anything else on Yahoo beginning with 'y'. Do a view source to find all their tracking domians. Also add *.flickr.com for their photo entity too.

But that's right, restricted sites zone means no cookies and no scripts allowed. Even if they ignore di not track, restricted sites zone will stop their tracking cold, all they will get is ip address and browser user agent.

Yahoo still the king of sports coverage (1, Informative)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 2 years ago | (#41787121)

Can't beat their sports coverage, live score tracking, and their collection of sports writers. Yahoo is still the best if you are trying to track numerous college or pro football games on Saturday or Sunday. CBSsports.com is a close second. ESPN's website is too flash-heavy, and slow to load most pages.

Re:Yahoo still the king of sports coverage (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787215)

So it's the mouth-breathing retarded sports fans that keep Yahoo alive? Good to know, thx

Re:Huge percentage are IE users (4, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41787173)

What's even more shocking is that there's people still using Yahoo.

When working on any neophytes or old persons computer Yahoo is there under IE with the default homepage 80% of the time. Reason being is the crapware that OEMs install as well as ISP software both reset the users homepage too it for $$$ cash back.

Ones with MSN as the default page are typically corporate users. If MS decided not to be retarded and capture the market from Google they would put it in the Windows contract to not change the homepage at the OEM level. ... anyway I can see why Yahoo would be threatened by this as smart users like us who go to sites like slashdot use an alternative browser. Or if we do use IE we change the homepage to Google or something similar. Yahoo is the oldschool portal that regular people use who are not into computers very reminiscent of AOL back in the day 10 years earlier.

Re:Shocking (4, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#41787265)

I use flickr and mostly (same reason people stick with 'certain social networks') its because there are some really good people I stay in touch with. its a damned shame that flickr is also yahoo.

I have quite a complex set of adblock filters for yahoo and they often get in the way when I try to do some editing in flickr. some dialogs take nearly a minute to pop up! god knows what jscript evil they are doing, but my systems just hangs and times out until their crap gives up and finally presents me with the dialog box I was trying to get (move photos into a group, etc). their STUPID gui programming interlaces too well with the ads and stuff that catches my filters, the site is nearly unusable. and its totally unusable without any filtering. lose/lose.

its a shame yahoo has mostly died. we do need alternatives. but their mail is unusable on my system and flickr is mostly unusable if you try to do anything other than a simple upload and tag.

hell, even dpreview (used to be a good photo site) has jumped the shark with their new reinvention of their web code. almost nothing works for me, there, now.

what is it with webmasters and the desire to use the most broken coding they can get away with? this really is breaking the web. the web was NOT meant for your javascript 'catch me if you can!' bullshit. it really was not!

Re:Shocking (0)

KaoticEvil (91813) | about 2 years ago | (#41787371)

What's even more shocking is that there's people still using Yahoo.

You meant IE and not yahoo, right?

Re:Shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787537)

I haven't used yahoo for a long time and now I probably never will again.

Re:Shocking (1)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about 2 years ago | (#41787099)

I'm shocked, SHOCKED...

Re:Shocking (2, Insightful)

Peter Bortas (130) | about 2 years ago | (#41787345)

MS broke the standard agreement for do-not-track, so I don't blame anyone for ignoring the setting if from IE10. The standard was there for a reason: It was the only chance any site would agree to following the headers intention.

Re:Shocking (2)

ChatHuant (801522) | about 2 years ago | (#41787487)

MS broke the standard agreement for do-not-track, so I don't blame anyone for ignoring the setting if from IE10. The standard was there for a reason: It was the only chance any site would agree to following the headers intention.

If you stop and think for a minute, this alleged "standard" is nothing more than a promise from the ad companies that they will honor the "do not track" flag as long as we promise to never set it. And you really don't see a problem with that, but blame MS instead? Sheesh, you should be glad MS has called their bluff and exposed the "standard" as the fraud it really is.

Re:Shocking (2)

ls671 (1122017) | about 2 years ago | (#41787379)

Really, the only way to ensure your privacy is extreme paranoia. Sorry.

I would just say "sane" paranoia.

And users will continue (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787031)

To ignore Yahoo till it dies a nice slow death....

Re:And users will continue (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41787061)

"Slow" being the operative word, if Yahoo is anything like AOL. AOL is still around, somehow, though I have no fucking clue how. I'm guessing it'll be able to hang on and generate revenue until its users all die of old age (which probably won't be that long).

Re:And users will continue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787081)

They also own a rather large blog network. Ever use Engadget or Joystiq? They're owned by AOL, there's a little AOL icon at the top of the page.

Re:And users will continue (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#41787143)

But Yahoo isn't anything like AOL in terms of survivability. Yahoo made an insanely good investment in Alibaba so now they can pretty much coast on those profits through years of horrible web apps and intrusive advertising...

Re:And users will continue (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41787233)

Then why are they laying off employees and using revolving CEOs? The investors disagree with that assertion

Re:And users will continue (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 years ago | (#41787303)

Selling almost $8B in Alibaba stock isn't an assertion, it's a fact. Look it up. It may end up being the main reason Yahoo is around in 5 years.

Sort of like how Tivo is only around because they have sued Dish Network, Verizon, etc for hundreds of millions, not because they are actually making a profit from their service any more...

Re:And users will continue (3, Funny)

zill (1690130) | about 2 years ago | (#41787195)

AOL is still around, somehow, though I have no fucking clue how.

Lies! I haven't received any free coasters from them for years now.

Why not? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787047)

Even Apache doesn't honor DNT if it has been issued by IE10

http://www.pcworld.com/article/262150/apache_web_servers_will_ignore_ie10s_do_not_track_settings.html

Re:Why not? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787095)

But.... but.... but... it's teh Linux!!!!!11111!!!!

Re:Why not? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787103)

False. It is configured to do this by default via the httpd.conf, which is easily altered. Saying Apache doesn't honor DNT based on user agent is misleading.

Re:Why not? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787155)

Wow you really managed to split that hair so fine.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787535)

So Apache does honor DNT. Way to double down once you recognize you're wrong.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787235)

How can you say it is false when in the next couple of words you say it is true?

Yes, it can be altered. Anything can be altered. But why would the DEFAULT be to violate the privacy of IE 10 users? Either the apache programmers are fucking insane and retarded, or they are being bribed by advertisers and crooks. Occam's razor, bitches.

Re:Why not? (0)

tofubeer (1746800) | about 2 years ago | (#41787297)

Or Microsoft isn't following the spec, so people are ignoring the setting for them: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#determining [w3.org]

Re:Why not? (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#41787481)

If giving users privacy by default is ignoring the spec then the spec is already meaningless.

As such I and no doubt many others will continue to use ad-blockers and roll out ad-blockers to friends, family, and the businesses we work for to ensure that if they're going to track us regardless of our DNT setting, then they wont get any ad-revenue at all.

So here's the thing, if I go into IE's options and disable DNT, and then re-enable it giving express consent according to the DNT spec then tell me, why is my DNT option still going to be ignored by Apache, Yahoo etc. hmm? Who is breaking the spec to make money and suit themselves then?

Re:Why not? (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 2 years ago | (#41787495)

Microsoft follows the spec just fine, They give the users a choice at setup for enabling the DNT, but scumbag advertisers and those bought out by them in the industry never had any intention of this being an effective means to prevent tracking. The intention was to slap lipstick on the privacy pig so they could tell regulators that there is no need to crack down on them. Unfortunately MS has spoiled there little butt fucking party by making it easy for the user to make the intelligent choice.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787511)

MS were following the spec, The spec was explicitly changed recently to try and stop MS giving users the choice.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787553)

> Or Microsoft isn't following the spec, so people are ignoring the setting for them

Using IE vs Firefox vs Chrome vs Opera vs Safari, etc. is a choice. This has already been determined in US court. Not sure why DNT standard proponents imply choice can only be "ui interactions from within the browser", oh yeah, it's not an open standard as much as a backroom deal disguised as a technical solution. Good on MS and good on Yahoo.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787507)

> Anything can be altered.

Not true. But you can try.

> But why would the DEFAULT be to violate the privacy of IE 10 users?

Violation of privacy is an undefined event for an undefined legal concept (spanning not just the US). The more specific reason the technical standard is flawed, is why "choice" means a setting in the browser. That's not a choice, that's an arbitrary series of interactions. This is not the same as "choice". Using a specific browser, is a choice.

Re:Why not? (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41787213)

Because Google, doubleclick, and every e-marketer on the planet gives money to Apache and writes modules for it.

If Apache respected it they would get some angry phone calls and threatening actions like ad networks only supporting IIS. Either you do not support it or we will cut you out of the market with someone else instead!!

Obviously (4, Interesting)

Skyshadow (508) | about 2 years ago | (#41787049)

Is it really a surprise that a failing business like Yahoo! would ignore its users in an attempt to make money?

Look, the obvious lesson here is that no business can be trusted to keep secrets. Also: Water is wet, fire is hot. Don't give out anything you don't want to get out there, no matter what some PHB promises you.

It's MS ignoring users, Yahoo&DNT want user ch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787385)

Yahoo (and the DNT standard) are pushing for the exact opposite of ignoring users. The Do Not Track standard says the header is to be sent if the user expressly chooses they do not want customizations. It's Microsoft breaking the standard, setting DNT in the absence of any user choice.

That means IE's header does NOT indicate that the user prefers non-customized pages. Indeed with IE the header means nothing and therefore SHOULD be ignored.

Re:It's MS ignoring users, Yahoo&DNT want user (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787563)

You are a good corporate educated sheep. No matter how you spin it and how much Microsoft hate there is still in you it's a good thing this is turned on by default and every browser should turn it on by default and any company ignoring it should be named and shamed. I can't see a single reason why a normal intelligent being would want to be tracked.

Yahoo Leads the Way (4, Funny)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 2 years ago | (#41787055)

Yahoo leads the way forward, whether it is in their innovative email platform with intuitive ui (ads), their reporting (entertainming/advertising) with an insightful comments from the community (tea partying racists), or their home page that I haven't visited but I hear has relevant content (ads) - Yahoo is the future. We can't expect anything less than a rejection of IE's fascist desire to make advertising less lucrative. After all, users want nothing more than for the advertising they see to be as intrusive and lucrative for companies as possible.

Re:Yahoo Leads the Way (0, Offtopic)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 2 years ago | (#41787175)

Apparently disagreeing with something = mod it troll. I'm guessing its the tea party racist bit - which is a very accurate reflection of the comments section on a yahoo article. Accuracy can sometimes sting just a little.

Stupid choice from Microsoft (2, Insightful)

da_matta (854422) | about 2 years ago | (#41787069)

They should have made a huge startup dialog "Do you want to be tracked" and achieved 90+% block without these complaints. They might still have ignored it but at least it would have been clearly a DNT violation

Re:Stupid choice from Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787179)

You are naively assuming that Microsoft intention with that choice is to avoid their users being tracked and not just boom the DNT thingy.

Re:Stupid choice from Microsoft (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41787203)

Knowing Slashdot they would then be bashed for annoying pop ups and letting advertisers track them.

Clueless users would feel IE is stalking them after seeing it pop up every 5 seconds browsing the web and would switch to Chrome so they do not have to feel tracked.

Re:Stupid choice from Microsoft (-1, Troll)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#41787427)

Knowing Slashdot they would then be bashed for annoying pop ups and letting advertisers track them.

Clueless users would feel IE is stalking them after seeing it pop up every 5 seconds browsing the web and would switch to Chrome so they do not have to feel tracked.

Have you read the article, because of Microsoft an opt-in privacy feature has been destroyed.When Microsoft create stealth technology in their browser to protect their users. Let me care, but right now I'm just seeming more intrusive behaviour around their own products...have you used Windows 8.

Re:Stupid choice from Microsoft (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787305)

They should have made a huge startup dialog "Do you want to be tracked"

Have you actually seen the startup dialog [akamai.net] ?

It's not that DNT is on by default; as is made clear, choosing the Express settings will turn it on.

The browser out of the box does not have DNT set in either state.

Re:Stupid choice from Microsoft (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41787311)

They should have set the DNT field to a null string when not explicitly selected by the user, telling IE not to respond with a DNT response. When a site asks about DNT, and the value isnt initialized, then it can inform the user something like "$DomainHost has requested information about your willingness to receive targeted advertisement information, and other targeted web services via the DNT function. You can read more about this functionality at $MSDNPageReferenceURL. Would you like to enable this feature for this session? You can set your choice globally in the browser options page, and change your preference at any time."

That would have nailed the lid on the "User Intent" issue down hard.

Re:Stupid choice from Microsoft (1)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#41787499)

Actually good on them for exposing what a sham DNT is.

These companies ignoring it are just using whatever excuse under the sun to do what they were always going to do anyway, and ignore it.

As I've said elsewhere, if I disable DNT in IE, then re-enable it, then there's no breach of the spec, and I've provided my express consent for the DNT option, but despite that these companies like Yahoo, and webservers like Apache will still ignore my choice if I use IE10 meaning that it's actually them who are violating DNT.

In other words, these folks will ignore DNT regardless, for no reason other than the fact they're complete and utter privacy violating money grabbing cunts.

Time will Tell!!! Another open hole in windows.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787073)

Considering Windows was built with holes in it, on purpose, I would not be surprised that DNT will be another hole that hacker/attackers find extremely useful. However before I get to far ahead of myself, we will have to wait and see. There has to be some ill willed intent behind this coming from MS. But no group has yet to expose anything from the DNT, other then they want to give a false sense of security to trick people into believing IE is still worth the security holes users expose themselves too..

M$ responds by... (1)

AlienSexist (686923) | about 2 years ago | (#41787075)

Changing the DNT request text from: "DNT (Default)" to "DNT (User's Choice)" Now Yahoo! will be ignoring the wishes of the user.

There HAS to be an alternative to: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787083)

-this kindergarten bitch game of appealing to a bunch of assholes to comply with a pre-poisoned protocol of centrally regulated tracking. Let this be a binary battle instead, where a distinct line of intelligent development and availability divides those who strive for privacy and those who expect it. Really, I find myself utterly perplexed that browsers are not the culprit. With ANY browser, most people have essentially two choices: Sell your soul to "Add Ons", or deal with a shiny and fast POS. I think the fact that mainstream browsers require a slew of additions to ascend from the cyber-toilet, deserves some healthy resentment.

Why assume permission? (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 2 years ago | (#41787097)

The rule on private property is that you do not have permission to use it unless and until the property owner says you do. If he doesn't say anything, you don't have permission.

The rule about inviting yourself into someone else's home is that you don't have the right to unless they say you can. If they don't say, you don't have permission.

Our world's full of things where a lack of explicit permission means you don't have permission. Now, as far as the site itself is concerned I don't object to them tracking what I do on that site. It's their site, I can't expect to access it without them knowing what I'm doing. But a third party, it's not their site. Why should the rule not be that, absent my express permission for them to track my comings and goings, they do not have permission?

Re:Why assume permission? (3, Insightful)

BeanThere (28381) | about 2 years ago | (#41787171)

Why should the rule not be that, absent my express permission for them to track my comings and goings, they do not have permission?

Basically, it should be, this is common sense. The problem now is for those in the advertising industry whose business model has been based on the ability to deceptively trick the majority of users into not realizing just how badly they're being tracked online and how broadly their info is being sold etc.

I think if your business model is based on tricking people into doing something that they would reject if they fully knew and understood what you were doing, then you are doing something wrong.

That said, I think the claims that the industry would just die without the ability to track users are overblown. I think the effectiveness of personalized advertising is exaggerated, as well as the perceived value in compiling detailed user profiles with full web histories. The reason is that targeted advertising doesn't really increase the number of dollars available to chase after goods. Example: you don't really suddenly decide to buy a motorcycle because of a targeted advert ... in most cases you probably decided you wanted a motorcycle first, and then you probably anyway ignored most the adverts in order to do some more solidly grounded market research, e.g. looking at the specs of the bikes, getting some advice from friends or online forums, and looking at what motorcycles actually appeal to you. A targeted ad in that case might make you statistically very slightly more likely to favor another brand .... but for most people the decision will be based mostly on things like advice from friends, comparison of specs, and test rides. And after you buy the motorcycle, those dollars are basically no longer available to spend on all the other crap being advertised online to you.

If targeted advertising based on tracking your data etc. was as useful as has been claimed, Facebook would have made a killing from it, but instead it was a flop, and they have now desperately resorted to just making companies pay for 'sponsored posts' now instead to dump the crap in your feed.

Re:Why assume permission? (2)

Gordo_1 (256312) | about 2 years ago | (#41787237)

Why should the rule not be that, absent my express permission for them to track my comings and goings, they do not have permission?

Why should the rule be that the information you explicitly (or unknowingly) divulge through your web browser in the form of cookies, IP addresses, referers, information input into forms, and so on is NOT something you have essentially shared with that party as well as any 3rd-parties they wish to share it with?

As far as I'm concerned, if you hang your tighty whiteys on a clothesline, your neighbors have every right to sell T-shirts with a picture of your skid marked underwear on them. Don't like it? Get a dryer. ...or in this case, get blocking software or simply don't visit the site.

IE10's DNT implementation is a bad joke and as far as I'm concerned Yahoo! has every right to ignore it.

Re:Why assume permission? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787559)

A thousand times this. Where do people get off assuming every bit of information they send around the web is somehow their property by default and everyone else has to ask permission to share or even store it?

Don't get me wrong, a simple and clearly worded agreement between an information-based company and a customer is generally a great idea, and I might even go so far as to entertain the notion of some thread-bare regulations on such services, but giving people almost complete legal control over the distribution of their personal information is to me extreme, deeply unnatural, inefficient, and immoral.

The number of people that support the idea that others don't have a right to collect, store, and share information freely given to them tells me there is a significant demographic of blatant hypocrites here on Slashdot. Copyright is such an unpopular notion and there is more than a minority here attacking it on the grounds that a right to control the distribution of information is based purely in economics and not at all in morality.

Re:Why assume permission? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787289)

Because assuming permission makes more money. Marketers do not care about the product's privacy, it's one of the many perks of having no soul.

What browser makers really need to do is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787111)

What browser makers really need to do to prevent tracking is to simply clear cookies when you close your browser. For good measure also clear flash and silverlight cookies. That prevents persistent tracking. It works perfectly for me. I've never needed do not track.

Re:What browser makers really need to do is (2)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 2 years ago | (#41787125)

What browser makers really need to do to prevent tracking is to simply clear cookies when you close your browser. For good measure also clear flash and silverlight cookies. That prevents persistent tracking. It works perfectly for me. I've never needed do not track.

How do you know they aren't tracking you by IP address and habit of sites you visit?

Re:What browser makers really need to do is (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 2 years ago | (#41787245)

They do that even with the DNT cookie, DNT is purely a do not send me targeted ads, they are still allowed to track you even while honouring DNT. The whole DNT thing is pointless and whoever came up with it as a way to move forward should be lined up and shot.

Yahoo? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787139)

What's yahoo?

I didn't use Yahoo! before... (2)

twocows (1216842) | about 2 years ago | (#41787145)

And I definitely won't use them now. They can rot.

Makes it easy (3, Funny)

Joe U (443617) | about 2 years ago | (#41787165)

Now I know to do full ad and cookie blocking for yahoo sites.

Thanks Yahoo, you made my decision easier.

Re:Makes it easy (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 years ago | (#41787565)

Wait you don't do this by default for the entire internet?

Microsoft should... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787183)

Retaliate by getting rid of DNT entirely and then reconfiguring the defaults to be as follows:

Accept First Party Cookies
Block ALL Third Party Cookies
Accept Session Cookies
Delete All Session Cookies on Program Termination

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that MICROSOFT gives more of a shit about the end user than everyone else?

Re:Microsoft should... (3, Insightful)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#41787411)

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that MICROSOFT gives more of a shit about the end user than everyone else?

All that Microsoft did achieve...and all it could achieve is to have others ignore the functionality. They actually destroyed its functionality by embracing it. If Microsoft gave a shit it would be using Tor, or creating similar technology...or even just making their own OS less spyware. I was shocked at how much information Windows 8 wanted from me.

Re:Microsoft should... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#41787461)

Not really, actually, it's logical. For MS, we're the customer. For Yahoo, we're the product.

Why rely on this for your privacy? (4, Informative)

Virtucon (127420) | about 2 years ago | (#41787281)

DNT+, Ghostery these are all out there. Frankly there's probably very few websites now that don't track your IP address and other details with multiple
trackers.

Hell go to cnn.com and Ghostery blocks 10 trackers alone. Two of those are )(*@!@)*# Facebook trackers. Frankly, the amount of information people are collecting about our web browsing activities is becoming staggering and I for one won't rely on a company saying they'll honor "Do not Track" options from the browsers.

As Navin Johnson said "It's out there, see a doctor get rid of it" - The Jerk

Re:Why rely on this for your privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787485)

Don't use Ghostery, it is created by an advertising company that is most likely tracking you through the plugin itself.

Yahoo has this 100% correct (3, Informative)

frobbie (2756533) | about 2 years ago | (#41787291)

The W3C DNT spec explicitly says that a browser should not set this by default, yet Microsoft is completely ignoring the spec and turning it on by default. What Yahoo is doing it 100% correct - it's the only right answer to Microsoft completely ignoring the DNT spec, both in it's intent as well as it's actual words. Every other major web property WILL do the same. Apache already has a patch to ignore DNT from IE10, now Yahoo is doing the same, and the rest will follow.

Fuck No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787307)

Just because M$ is wrong, does not make Y! correct. Not even fucking close.

Y! would be more correct to just stop supporting M$ browsers at all, and if shit breaks remind the user that they should switch to a supported browser.

Re:Yahoo has this 100% correct (1, Insightful)

vistapwns (1103935) | about 2 years ago | (#41787423)

I love the obtuseness on this sentiment, which is very common. The 'standard' was changed after it was discovered that MS was going to enable DNT by default, in that sense, it's part of the standard, but that aspect of the standard is ad hoc and politically/financially motivated. Users should have privacy by default, period. If web sites want to make money, they should innovate to attract more users, offer more services, or require a pay wall if they can't innovate. There is no pro-user argument for DNT must be user selected, except the round-a-bout 'web sites need to track most users to make money'. In that light, DNT would be ignored any way if most users used it (since that's what the complaint of IE10 really is - that most users will have privacy, not that they want to be tracked), which makes this whole issue a farce. People here jump on as a reason to bash MS (excuse me, "M$"), in an epic show of short-sightedness that is common here. yea, yea, -1 incoming, whatever.

Slashdot uses apache... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787301)

Users of the SourceForge, Slashdot and Freecode websites have choices regarding the collection and use of information through our websites. This page summarizes some of those choices regarding our use of cookies, some advertising and other tools we use on our websites, and choices that you have about receiving newsletters and other communications from Geeknet. This page is designed to highlight some of the choices you have; for a more detailed discussion, please see Geeknet’s Privacy Statement.

If you feel that DNT should be respected, and you would like to opt-out, please send an email to bitbucket@slashdot.org, devnull@slashdot.org, and trashcan@slashdot.org. Your email will not be read and no action will be taken.

Opt in is the right way, but then they'd get no... (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#41787325)

Opt in is the right way to do this sort of tracking or marketing to, but the problem with the opt-in is that then they'd get no takers. It's the same reason that MS did so well by bundling IE into the OS: people stick with the default option and do not change things.

.

It's the same way that political polls and statisticians can lie with numbers: you can ask the same question in ways that can "force" or "prompt" a particular answer. (See also episodes of Yes, Prime Minister [wikipedia.org] for examples.

I want to be tracked!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787343)

I think it should be illegal to avoid tracking and the evidence suggests the majority of people agree with me on this one.

All major cities have cameras and tracking these days, 99.98% of the population carriers a tracking device on them, and almost nobody uses the software which would reduce the effectiveness of tracking (Tor).

After all it's for your own safety!

Re:I want to be tracked!!! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#41787449)

If I just could opt out of that delusion of safety. In return, I promise I won't complain if the boogeyman du jour (is it still terrorists? I lost interest a while ago) kills me.

Agreed? No? Gee, why not?

Let me explain why Yahoo feels this way (political (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787353)

I've been using Yahoo for many years and I tried very hard to understand how their company works and why they are always politically biased and publish articles that are very controversial. There are two reasons for this, the first reason that we're all well familiar with is money. They make money for posting controversial articles because they have about 8 advertisements per page, often times videos load immediately when we don't like it (ABP was designed against these kinds of intrusive tactics). The second thing that is least obvious is their ties with the feds. As it turns out, I have spoken to three reputable individuals that were able to confirm various websites that work hand in hand with the federal government, Yahoo being one of them, but more specifically DISQUS. In attempt to monitor potential terrorists, DISQUS as well as many other social networks have cooperated to invalidate people's privacy for a matter of national security.

While I may not agree with their tactic, it is entirely legal, and there's only one thing that can defend us from being spied on from these networks and that's to just not use them. However, nearly all networks will be monitored sometime next year, I believe around May or June and collectively stored in a vary large data center in Utah. However, commenting is not just the only method of which there are privacy concerns but it extends as far as allowing E-Mails to be read by "authorized" authorities, and scanned (I believe only the title) and stored into a "smart" database. In some rare instances, you only need to be logged into facebook and yahoo to be "linked" between accounts when the proper authority uses the correct parser. It's no longer about posting things, but rather just signing in.

I won't tell you guys who told me this, and how many there were, but it's something that is bothersome and will only become worse from now. I don't really care about certain things because I don't do anything illegal, but it's the principle that matters to me. I don't like a "big brother" watching me, because they are civil servants and nothing more. Thank you for reading this.

hunh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787361)

Okay, I may understand user intent. But easily abused? That is like saying, turning the lights off in my house to save money is abusing use the power company.
I have a question, I wonder how would they react if instead of setting the DNT status to a default state, the browser asked the user at setup or first run what state they want DNT in? Why do I get the feeling that they would say that it's unfair and they still wont honor it.

*I* Rather be tracked by default (4, Interesting)

Quick Reply (688867) | about 2 years ago | (#41787373)

It makes me feel good inside to know that I am creating revenue for the website that I visit, which helps cover the cost of providing that website. Tracking a user and giving targeting advertising increases the value of the advertising campaigns, which translates into more money for the website.

If we didn't have this, the web is going to become subscription-only very quickly.

Slashdot gives me the option to "Disable Advertising" for having positive Karma, but I choose not to use this.

What is annoying, is that the tracking wouldn't be an issue if the online advertising industry would be more honest to consumers about their practices from be beginning so that it would have been accepted early on, and also not give online advertising a bad name by not tricking websites into displaying ads that the web developer has said not to, and also allowing intrusive or misleading advertising (like how many fake 'Download' buttons do you see on Download sites for example).

Re:*I* Rather be tracked by default (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#41787435)

I agree with you yet I do have a very strict ad blocker in effect. Why, you ask?

Because I do NOT want to reward pages that trick me into visiting them by allowing them to spam ads at me. Rather, I would prefer to damage them by increasing their bandwidth without getting them any ad revenue in turn. If enough people did it, such pages that hook onto common search queries without actually providing the relevant information would quickly cease to exist.

If, and only if, a page offers me what I want, be it information, entertainment or just a joke, I go out of my way to enable their ads if, and only if, they don't slap me in the face with popups and more windows opening than the average person can close in a lifetime. If the ads are actually on topic (like Slashdot's are more often than not, interestingly) I will even click them to see what's on the other end of it.

Ads are not bad by definition. Ads can actually be very informative, I would have never discovered a few games and other goodies I treasure if it was not for ads. They received their bad name by ad companies that thought it's a bright idea to make them annoying. Annoying ads don't work in the online world where I, not the ad company, decide what I'll get to see. Make ads informative and you'll see people will not only stop blocking them, they'll actually follow the link they provide to learn more about the product.

Of course, for that to work you'd first of all need a product that people actually wanted and that doesn't need hard selling...

Re:*I* Rather be tracked by default (4, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#41787517)

Yes, because before ads and subscription only became the norm there was nothing on the internet whatsoever, no content at all, nope, none whatsoever. Even sites like Wikipedia don't actually exist and we all just imagined them because they don't have ads or tracking so they can't possibly be real.

For what it's worth the quality of content has gone down with the increase in ad-revenue run sites. You only have to look at Slashdot for example - nowadays due to being so reliant on gathering ad-revenue they regularly post stories that are out and out flamebait and not correct, informative, or interesting whatsoever purely to gain ad-revenue. Ad run websites have merely created a race to the bottom- to provide as much untrue inciteful bollocks as possible to make people come and see what the fuss is all about to increase ad revenue.

Dear industry (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#41787399)

If you want us to stop using tracking and ad blockers, you might want to put pressure on companies (like, say, Yahoo) that make us use them.

Sincerely, your user.

Re:Dear industry (2)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#41787469)

(assumes role of Devil's Advocate...)

Dear User,

The reason we want you to stop using software to block advertisements and tracking cookies is manifold; we rely on advertisement revenue to supply you with our web content. In addition to that, we rely on tracking cookies to track your browser session. We do this to differentiate your session from other registered users, and to maintain the contents of any internet shopping queues you may have currently active. Obstruction the function of these two required services greatly reduces our ability to both provide the content you come to our site for, and our ability to provide you a quality user experience.

The DNT setting is intended, by the specification handed down by the W3C organization, to have no default value. It is intended to contain only the explicit desired value, as chosen exclusively by you, the end user.

Microsoft's decision to set DNT's status in their express setup wizard has made this valuable feature completely useless for its intended function, which is to express you, the end user's, wishes about your privacy online. If we wanted to know Microsoft's opinion on the matter, we would have simply asked them, instead of trying to work with the W3C to get yours.

Due to Microsoft's abuse of the feature poisoning the results, we have no choice but to ignore this setting for Internet Explorer 10 users.

We will (*inaudible mumble*) your preferences with the DNT setting on any other browser, however, so please feel free to migrate away from IE10 if you wish to use this feature.

Thank you,
$InternetContentIndustry

This is nothing but a MS IE PR campaign (1)

TrueSpeed (576528) | about 2 years ago | (#41787455)

I don't think this company knows what a standard is because they seem to fight them every chance they get. They think they're getting brownie points for being "Pro Consumer", but as always they just end up looking like fools in the end. This is nothing but a PR campaign to prop their lousy browser back into relevance after being embarrassed repeatedly by Chrome.

I don't use IE (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#41787463)

Does Yahoo honour the Do Not Track of any browser?
If so, which?

Justification (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787475)

Their justification? '[T]he DNT signal from IE10 doesn't express user intent" and "DNT can be easily abused.'"

Well, I guess that sounds better than what will be other advertiser's justification, "because we can".

Evil bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787497)

Relying on corporations to honor the DNT is like relying on intruders to set the evil bit [ietf.org] .

it's 10 ads vs 1 targeted ad (1)

NotRealName (2718053) | about 2 years ago | (#41787525)

If I have to choose between 1 targeted ad, and 10 random ads, I'll take the tracking.

"DNT can be easily abused." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41787527)

And so we will!?!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>