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!

Do Not Track Ineffective and Dangerous, Says Researcher

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the best-intentions dept.

Privacy 207

Seeteufel writes "Nadim Kobeissi, security researcher, describes the Do Not Track standard of the W3C as dangerous. 'In fact, Google's search engine, as well as Microsoft's (Bing), both ignore the Do Not Track header even though both companies helped implement this feature into their web browsers. Yahoo Search also ignored Do Not Track requests. Some websites will politely inform you, however, of the fact that your Do Not Track request has been ignored, and explain that this has been done in order to preserve their advertising revenue. But not all websites, by a long shot, do this.' The revelations come as Congress and European legislators consider to tighten privacy standards amid massive advertiser lobbying. 'Do not track' received strong support from the European Commission."

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

So, what he's saying is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890555)

Do Not Do Not Track?

Re:So, what he's saying is... (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890593)

Google's search engine, as well as Microsoft's (Bing), both ignore the Do Not Track header . . . . . Yahoo Search also ignored Do Not Track requests . . . . . . this has been done in order to preserve their advertising revenue.

File this under: Well, DUH!!!

Re:So, what he's saying is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890975)

File this under: "Random opinion blog post by some college kid that thinks DNT is dumb."

He's right, it's dumb. It's not exactly dangerous. But why are we even seeing this?

Legislation (5, Insightful)

anthony_greer (2623521) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890571)

The days of the wild west on the net are gone...If the big boys in the industry cant get their shit together soon, we will get legislation, and that will be bad for everyone!

Just once I wish these companies could see that it is in the best interest of everyone to keep the government out and work together to reach a policy that will be adopted as a general standard without a law mandating it...

Most advertisers are still stuck in the 1970's. (3, Insightful)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890671)

They still act like there are just 3 network TV stations, and that if they write a witty line in an ad, 50 million people will see it and go buy their crap. Like "Think Mink", or "Got Milk?". They still think they can bombard the public's eyeballs with ads and force us to robotically buy whatever they are selling. "Do Not Track" isn't even a speed-bump for these geniuses.

Re:Most advertisers are still stuck in the 1970's. (1)

anthony_greer (2623521) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890711)

I don't know about the tag line thing for the examples you give: Milk is a staple, been around long before modern advertising...and Think Mink? I never heard of it and cant really tell what they want me to buy with a quick google search for that term...

Re:Most advertisers are still stuck in the 1970's. (3, Interesting)

alvinrod (889928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892647)

It still works on some level though, otherwise they wouldn't bother doing it. Same reason there's still loads of spam. You don't need 50 million people to buy what you're selling. Just over the cost is fine, and anything beyond that is gravy. The market is relatively free, so it's going to tend towards equilibrium. So baring any external forces (e.g. government regulations) or some other massive change in the market, advertising isn't going to go away. At least there're things like ad block on the internet. Prior to DVRs there wasn't a good way to get around advertising on TV or the radio. Even if you left the room while it was on, it still ate into the program schedule. Even if you don't block ads on the web, they're by and large less obtrusive than what we had before.

Re:Legislation (5, Informative)

jazman_777 (44742) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890735)

Most big companies see it in their best interest to use the government to crush their competitors, all while the government gives them a free hand.

Re:Legislation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890781)

How about we leave the government out of the fucking internet and people can vote with their visits? The fact that these sites are still popular shows that people overwhelmingly don't care about targeted advertisement. (and they shouldn't, as anyone with real intelligence already knows)

Just like with companies off the internet, if you don't want to deal with them, then don't use them! Blacklist facebook, bing, yahoo, etc in your hosts file.

Re:Legislation (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890859)

It's 2013. Anyone who still thinks "vote with your wallet" works is a fucking idiot.

"Vote with the ballot box" is and will always be the fairest way: one person, one vote.

"Vote with your wallet" is similar but with the number of votes you get weighted by the size of your wallet.

DNT fails because large corporations are a bunch of lying, two-faced bastards. Abandoning DNT is no more sensible than repealing any law or policy "because rich people don't feel like following it".

Regulation works, except when regulatory capture happens. And regulatory capture happens when regulation is weak.

It's time to end Free Market As Religion. The balance that was social democracy represented the pinnacle of human civilisation, and it's time that America moved forwards to pre-Reaganite progress, and Europe to pre-Thatcherite progress.

Re:Legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890879)

Regulation works, except when regulatory capture happens.

As you can tell by the total absence of email spam now that spamming is illegal.

Oh, wait...

Re:Legislation (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890973)

"As you can tell by the total absence of murder now that murder is illegal."
"As you can tell by the total absence of rape now that rape is illegal."
"As you can tell by the total absence of theft now that theft is illegal."

See, that sophomoric black-and-white "X is not 100% effective therefore it is 0% effective" argument is shit. And it always will be shit.

As for spam:
1) There would be way more spam if spam were entirely legal;
2) Anyway, spam is very poorly regulated, thanks partly to regulatory capture: i) there are too many exceptions; ii) the deterrents are weak; and iii) enforcement of anti-spam legislation is lackadaisical.

You start chasing down all major spammers with jailtime and a 0% tolerance policy and watch the amount of spam plummet.

Re:Legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891051)

And, before you ask, regulation of drugs (from alcohol to morphine) is absolutely a good thing, but should not be confused with prohibition on possession of drugs.Prohibition on mere possession is the least effective form of regulation.

As far as I can see, the current anti-drugs laws are the perfect example of regulatory capture, creating the greatest profit for both the drugs lords and the part-privatised "justice" system, all at the expense of the users and those who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re:Legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891537)

There would be way more spam if spam were entirely legal;

[citation needed]

Re:Legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42892181)

citation needed to prove this citation is needed.
did you forget the 90's or something?

Re:Legislation (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891643)

Spam isn't much of a problem because of reasonably good technical solutions, not because of law written by ivy league lawyer techno-weenies who think they know what it is they do to/for the rest of us.

Re:Legislation (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892371)

And now try to convince some government in a country the name of which ends in -stan that prosecuting spammers is a worthwhile endeavour. Hint: It's likely a big part of their GDP.

Please lemme be there, I promise I try not to laugh. Can't promise I won't laugh, but I'll try.

Another hint: Spam doesn't give a fuck about your local laws, and neither does it care for petty things like national borders.

Re:Legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891553)

Well put! Thank you, especially for the Free Market as Religion part. Been looking for a nice soundbite sort of way to say that.

Re:Legislation (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891629)

"Vote with the ballot box" is and will always be the fairest way: one person, one vote.

hahahaha..hah.. ha.... You say wallet-voting fails then defend voting? What planet are you from? Neither works in systems where consensus and feelings matter more than truth and facts. It's hard to manipulate people who stick with the latter two, leaving corporates and government without much power, thus they work to maintain an impulsive, emotional buyer/voter base..

DNT fails because it leaves the fox guarding the henhouse.. The only way to get rid of web tracking is to kill the scriptable browser.

Re:Legislation (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892581)

"You say wallet-voting fails then defend voting?"
I do.

one is democracy, the other is essentially rule by those with enough money to vote.

Re:Legislation (1)

sgunhouse (1050564) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892973)

"DNT fails because it leaves the fox guarding the henhouse.. The only way to get rid of web tracking is to kill the scriptable browser."
Scriptable browsers are what makes most ad-blocking features work - and all online "apps", like Gmail etc. Advertisers would love it if you killed scriptable browsers, but online services would hate it. Kill cookies (other than session cookies), sure, but not scripting.

Re:Legislation (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892377)

Last time I checked "Vote with the wallet" worked for the ballot box just fine. Of course, provided your wallet is big enough to buy the right politicians.

Re:Legislation (0)

Omestes (471991) | about a year and a half ago | (#42893107)

(and they shouldn't, as anyone with real intelligence already knows)

Adblock. I love it. If illegal, I'll still use it.

That said, your cheap way of trying to be an authority via implied ad hominem is rather silly. I am intelligent, and I fucking hate ads. I think ads are pretty much absolute scum, and rather insulting (as a person of real intelligence I don't think anyone could find them otherwise).

But then again, you have a small point, since thanks to ads I no longer watch TV, or go to sports. The few magazines I read are completely ad free (they cost more, but who cares?). Sadly, I have "real intelligence" when a large enough to be profitable portion of the words population don't. Sadly these are only the ads I can avoid, sometimes I wish people would go Edward Abbey on billboards, and destroy them all. I have no choice about them, and receive no benefit from them.

As for internet ads, I don't give a shit. I'm not here to make you money. And if you can't produce content worth my time or money, then you deserve to die. No loss to me, I've got books, hobbies, and friends. I'm only looking out for me, which any rational person would do. If your service can't service, then surely it didn't deserve to. Not my problem.

Re:Legislation (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890873)

Advertisers? Big boys? More like little bitches.

Laws or no laws to keep these assholes in line, no one is going to stop me from using Adblock, NoScript, DoNotTrackMe, etc. or similar tools. I don't trust these crooked fucks to even follow the law, so privacy extensions aren't going anywhere.

Re:Legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891205)

How will that be bad for everyone? Legislation is at least open to read, and you can take it to court. /Worst/ is leaving it to the 'big boys' of an industry to take care of.

Democracy is continuously messy and aggravating, but it's a fuck of a lot better than being sheeple inside corporate dictatorships.

Re:Legislation (0)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891687)

Democracy is continuously messy and aggravating, but it's a fuck of a lot better than being sheeple inside corporate dictatorships.

There's less and less of a difference between corporate dictatorships and the smothering oppression coming from neo-socialists passing themselves off as leaders of 'democratic republics'. Both pass off actions that preserve/grow their power bases as caring for the citizen/customer. This results in the latter having sheeple status. They're both full of shit.

Re:Legislation (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892395)

I guess you're right. Maybe I should move.

Do you know a country that's not ruled by corporate dictatorships but by that "democracy" you talk about?

Re:Legislation (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891591)

Oppression is oppression, whether it's corporatocratic tyranny, or abuse by ivy league lawyers in governments who think what's best for them is best for everyone else...Oh wait, both have basically the same attitude. The real fun begins when each side helps the other out, as is happening more and more these days.

Re:Legislation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891633)

"... we will get legislation..." These companies own the Federal and State Legislatures. The big corporations would love legislation. Then they could do what they want.

Re:Legislation (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892343)

And by "bad for everyone", you mean "bad for companies' bottom line and easy earnings". Consumers benefit. But consumers are rarely if ever part of that "everyone" when used by corporate shills.

Re:Legislation (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892347)

The big boys in the industry ARE getting their shit together. That is exactly WHY we get legislation.

What did you expect, invention? Lobbying is where you spend your money these days as a company, not innovation. It's not the better product that makes the race, it's the better lobbying.

Re:Legislation (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892871)

The days of the wild west on the net are gone...

No they've just been pushed outside the view of the popular perception of the internet.

The wild west is still there and if the pirate sites rising and falling, or the sharing sites being brought up under the same name as they were previously despite actual current ongoing legal battles are any indication we're a long way from any kind of enforcement by governments or corporations.

meanwhile... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890585)

Many of us here have been saying DNT is a bad idea since it first appeared (and often, on slashdot, we've been downmodded for it). The right way to do this is NOT to depend on the good will of the remote side. Even you passed laws that demand compliance, the data collection will just move out of the jurisdiction of those laws, and anyway, the companies involved will buy themselves exceptions and find creative loopholes. You can't win, that way.

You CAN avoid giving them much data in the first place. You don't have to load their web bugs, their trackers, accept their cookies, or flash objects, and you can obscure your user agent string, and if you're really paranoid, even your IP address. Don't give them the data, and they can't track you with it, or at least, can't tie it to any real world identity.

And it goes without saying, don't use bloody Facebook.

Re:meanwhile... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890683)

Someone will say, "I shouldn't have to do that!", and they're right, they shouldn't. But the simple reality is that you do have to do all that, and some others in that ilk (only whitelist javascripts you trust). It's your computer which loads those trackers. You are free to tell it not to do that, but don't fool yourself into thinking businesses built around tracking your every move will ever have your best interests at heart.

Re:meanwhile... (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891077)

So what's the problem with blocking all the garbage with the many tools we have and also having a DNT flag on top as a clear statement that the fact my browser didn't load any of the tracking crap was entirely intentional?

Re:meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891555)

None, I guess. You just can't depend on DNT doing jack by itself.

Re:meanwhile... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892379)

This would actually not work too well in this case. Sure, you yourself can move out of jurisdiction, but where does your advertisement revenue comes from? Most likely vast majority of it comes from EU companies or companies with legal presence in EU..

So let us imagine that getting dinged by this legislation bans EU based advertisers from selling advertisements to you under penalty of significant fine if caught. Suddenly all large advertisers face a clear cut choice: continue ignoring the law and lose vast majority of targeted local clients or honor the law and gain them.

I suspect that losses for ignoring would demolish profits far more then obeying but gaining all the local clients. Some things like gambling sites and porn could probably ignore this, but most of the major advertising networks mostly sell ads for local companies.

Re:meanwhile... (1)

grcumb (781340) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892495)

Many of us here have been saying DNT is a bad idea since it first appeared (and often, on slashdot, we've been downmodded for it). The right way to do this is NOT to depend on the good will of the remote side....

What do you mean by 'us', Kemo Sabe?

Okay, seriously: It's almost axiomatic in programming that you never trust your inputs, and you never assume that just because the external party (be it a function, another object, or a completely separate system) says it's going to X, that X will actually happen. So I'm good with the principle so far....

You CAN avoid giving them much data in the first place. You don't have to load their web bugs, their trackers, accept their cookies, or flash objects, and you can obscure your user agent string, and if you're really paranoid, even your IP address.

That's all well and good, but sometimes part of protecting yourself consists of telling someone else to stop doing what they're doing. Instead of just avoiding a particular street because of its dangers, why not roll a cruiser through from time to time and maybe make it clear that certain kinds of behaviour are Not Cool? That won't necessarily make the street safe, but it might serve to make it safer.

It is unfortunate that Do Not Track seems more like politely asking the school bully, 'Please stop taking my lunch money.' But sometimes it's a matter of getting the rule first, and adding teeth to it after the fact. All of this is, however, predicated on making it clear that wanton, indiscriminate data collection is decidedly Not Cool.

It's a first step. A pretty feeble first step, as the story makes clear. But it's a necessary one.

And it goes without saying, don't use bloody Facebook.

For a great many people, that's practically impossible. My employer operates a page where I share administrative duties, but you have to have a personal account in order to be granted admin access. Yes, I know that I'm not compelled to put anything personally incriminating there; I'm just saying that there are social and economic pressures that exist which sometimes make 'bloody Facebook' unavoidable.

Poisoning the well (5, Insightful)

morcego (260031) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890637)

For a long time, advertisement didn't bother me. I refused to use ad blocking addons, and considered ads just part of a trade. Sites give me content, I look at the ads.

Then came pop-ups. Pop-unders. Flash adds. Ads with music. Ads that would make my cockatiel go into convulsion, and start to drool and chase the neighbor's cat. And I have to tell you, my neighbor really loves her cat. And being chased by a drooling cockatiel will really humiliate a cat, and all dogs will start making fun of it. Not an idea situation.

So, back to the issue at hand. What MOST sites did was poison the well: no one can drink front it. It got so bad that I eventually had to start using ad blocking addons.

Now people want to implement VOLUNTARY sensitive advertisement and privacy practices. Obviously, they are trying to convince people we no longer need our ad blocking addons. By saying they will do something that is exactly the opposite of what they have done so far, ostensibly.

Sure, some sites will do the would Do Not Track dance. But those are the same sites that already respect our privacy and my neighbor's cat. Exactly the ones that don't need it.

The ones that need it the most, will just ignore it.

Fun, isn't it?

Fuck Do No Track. I will keep my Javascript and Ad blocking addons.

Re:Poisoning the well (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890791)

Then came pop-ups. Pop-unders. Flash adds. Ads with music. Ads that would make my cockatiel go into convulsion, and start to drool and chase the neighbor's cat. And I have to tell you, my neighbor really loves her cat. And being chased by a drooling cockatiel will really humiliate a cat, and all dogs will start making fun of it. Not an idea situation.

What you left out of that extensive list was malware served up through ad networks. It's not enough to go to "trusted sites" but you have to trust their ad servers too. On one site I still frequent, there was an ad serving up malware for an exploit in Windows. They have since clamped down on who their ad server is, but after that people installed adblock plus as a security measure.

--
BMO

Re:Poisoning the well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891139)

Pointless to make your sig the same as your username.

Why haven't you seen this by now?

Re:Poisoning the well (3, Funny)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891169)

My filesystem is case-sensitive, you insensitive clod.

Re:Poisoning the well (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891269)

You might want to think a bit more about the meaning of the word signature.

Re:Poisoning the well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891459)

I'm sorry to hear your connection is so poor, that you have to complain about downloading an additional 3 bytes.

Re:Poisoning the well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891983)

Obviously some people don't mind being pointless.

No kidding (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890843)

Advertisers need to STFU as they are the reason all this happened. Most people really don't mind non-invasive ads that much. They'll let them happen and likely not even complain. However the advertisers seem to think that more obnoxious, more invasive, etc is the way to get attention. Eventually, it pushes people over the edge and they will block it.

Happened to me. I was fine with ads, I understand the need. However I really hated popups. No problem, popup blocker. Then game the fucking flash ads, ok fine so a flash blocker with click to pay for the stuff I want. Then, HTML 5 ads that take over a page. Ok, fuck you, all ads are blocked, I've had enough.

Happens with more people I know too. They'll ask me if there's a way to deal with it and I'll point them to Adblock.

Advertisers really need to understand that if you don't want your market to go away, you have to stop being dicks about it. Keep the ads low key and not fraudulent, and people will probably be ok with it by and large. Some won't, but most won't mind, at least not enough to do something. However the more invasive you are, the more people will block it out.

Re:No kidding (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891689)

How much are you willing to pay to view your favorite sites?

Unfortunately, the reality is that running websites costs money, and people do not want to pay to access them. You pay to access them by viewing advertising. When you block ads, you are effectively stealing from the sites you visit. If you were shopping for cars and the seller was asking too much for one you really liked, you wouldn't steal it. You would buy a different one. If you don't like how the sites you visit advertise, go to different ones. If you insist on using those sites, deal with it.

Re:No kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42892235)

Wrong.
If it wasn't already paid for all you'd get is a huge "Server Not Found."
I pay for my bandwidth every month, it is up to the servers to pay for their bandwidth as well.
It is not my responsibility to pay for you to host ads and make money. And if its a commercial site you are hosting, you really have no business passing the cost of that to the consumers through ads or any other means. That's like those retarded catalogs you have to pay for the privilege of seeing that they have nothing of interest.
Nothing goes online unless it has been paid for already or there is a shared way to host it, in which case it's still fucking paid for already.

Re:No kidding (2)

Omestes (471991) | about a year and a half ago | (#42893149)

And if they aren't worth my money... I don't care. I don't need your content. Mostly I don't care about it, it is a distraction, nothing more. Perhaps a pleasurable one, but no more pleasurable than my hobbies, books, or friends. Something will fill the gap, we lived for hundred of thousands of years without your blog, and we can live a couple hundred thousand more without it again.

  Adapt or die. And the second you try to exploit me, is the second where I shop giving a shit about exploiting you.

I will ad block, and if they die ask me for actual money. If I don't pay, it tells you what I think your worth. There is no right to profit.

Further, you almost run into the RIAA fallacy. If no one paid, people would still make content. People always make content, it is what we do. I post reams of shit online (art, text, etc...) and will never get paid a cent for it. So do millions of other people. Sure, the volume will go down, but whose to say that the shit/quality ratio won't improve?

Re:No kidding (1)

NitWit005 (1717412) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891859)

What most advertisers do is irrelevant. They can't force everyone else to play fair. All you need to ruin everything is one advertiser who serves up millions of horrible pop ups, autoplay video and viruses. Everyone will be forced to use adblock because of the one jerk.

Re:No kidding (1)

Mandrel (765308) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892243)

Advertisers really need to understand that if you don't want your market to go away, you have to stop being dicks about it. Keep the ads low key and not fraudulent, and people will probably be ok with it by and large.

Making ads low-key only really works for sites where the ads are almost as compelling as the content — sites like search engines and content farms. Sites with top-quality content have a greater need for intrusive ads to pull people's attention away from that content. So I don't think the promotion of non-intrusive advertising is a solution to funding the media.

Re:Poisoning the well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891873)

I agree but I still check the "do not track" checkbox.... maybe one day I will be in a class action lawsuit and get $1... hahaha

Re:Poisoning the well (0)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892143)

Then came pop-ups. Pop-unders. Flash adds. Ads with music. Ads that would make my cockatiel go into convulsion, and start to drool and chase the neighbor's cat.
...
Fuck Do No Track. I will keep my Javascript and Ad blocking addons.

FYI: You're a fool, but not for the reason you think. DNT:1 isn't going to stop any of that crap you're railing against. DNT:1 doesn't prevent you from using an ad-blocker. The Do Not Track header is a key piece of technology that legislation can be built around to limit the unwanted aggregation of data that even your precious Ad blocking addons are leaking by your mere visiting of the page. Hell run WireShark with ABP enabled and watch it leak like a damned sieve. Fucking moron. Protip: Try to actually understand what the fuck something is before you write it off like some stupid monkey tossing a bowl of banana slices out of the cage because there's nothing to peel.

Re:Poisoning the well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42892989)

There are plenty of sites I WANT to support and I'm not completely against ads, but rather the implementation, so I have developed fairly simple rules. The first time I see

-Popup
-Large flashing thing with obscene colours
-Scam ad

, I will edit site preferences, selectively enable ad-blocking and disable plugins and javascript. Have fun not getting revenue from me ever again.

More attention seeking behaviour by Nadim (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890661)

I wouldn't place too much importance of anything Nadim has to say on this subject. He is obviously not being objective because he has a score to settle with Christopher Soghoian, who called him and Wired magazine out on their hyping of Cryptocat before any proper security audit was performed on it. Recently, Nadim is also behaving in an immature manner and more and more like an attention-seeking drama queen instead of in a logical and sensible manner. He needs to learn to accept criticism and respond in a rational manner to be taken seriously.

Not a technical solution (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890685)

The poster asserts that DNT is a (not very good) technical solution to a technical problem, and proposes other technical solutions.

The problem is that DNT is neither a technical solution, nor is it trying to solve a technical problem.

DNT is the first step in a legal solution to a social problem.

You may argue whether legal or technical solutions (or both, or neither) are more effective against this social problem. However, put DNT into the right bucket first!

Re:Not a technical solution (1, Redundant)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891011)

Wrong.

Tracking is not a technical problem in the first place. It's an economic and social problem where people choose to track visitors on purpose for the sake of advertising revenue.

It's not a technical problem because it's working exactly as intended.

Re:Not a technical solution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891981)

Your reading comprehension skills are very impressive.

Killer 'Do Not Track' App? (1)

blitzkrieg3 (995849) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890691)

I seem to remember the imputus for this stupid technology was that a Mozilla researcher was about to make available some technology that either blocked tracking cookies or made them relatively anonymous, but then Google and others stepped in and stopped it, and came up with this easily ignorable solution instead. Has anyone else heard of this or am I making it up? Since the story first broke I haven't been able to find any references to it.

Re:Killer 'Do Not Track' App? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891003)

This? https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Anonymous_Browsing

Re:Killer 'Do Not Track' App? (3, Informative)

alostpacket (1972110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891265)

Interesting, but I am pretty sure DNT was Mozilla's Idea. And frankly, it always seemed like a waste of time. Given all the ways that one can be tracked though, a technical solution seems difficult as well.

- Cookies
- JavaScript
- tracking pixels
- HTML local DBs
- Flash objects
- fonts
- screen size/colors
- plugin config/versions
- User agent
- IP address
- and now.... "DNT" toggle...

It almost seems as the only way to keep from being tracked is via the TOR browser incognito mode in a freshly wiped VM or something. I honestly wonder if the 'net need to move more towards mesh/tor/ad-hoc networking. Basically if the "darknet" should be the "mainnet".

Anyways, some info:

EFF tool to see how well you can be tracked (fingerprinted)
https://panopticlick.eff.org/index.php?action=log [eff.org]

NAI (Network Advertising Initiative)
Tracking opt out of 99 of some of the largest ad networks, including Google and MS (but guess who isn't there?)
http://www.networkadvertising.org/choices/ [networkadvertising.org]

Apple iAd opt out
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4228 [apple.com]

Re:Killer 'Do Not Track' App? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891675)

NAI (Network Advertising Initiative)
Tracking opt out of 99 of some of the largest ad networks, including Google and MS (but guess who isn't there?)
http://www.networkadvertising.org/choices/ [networkadvertising.org]

Sure - the first thing this NAI website does is set a cookie, then it won't work (whatever it does) without javascript enabled. What's wrong with this picture?

Re:Killer 'Do Not Track' App? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892619)

I seem to remember the impetus for this stupid technology was that a Mozilla researcher was about to make available some technology that either blocked tracking cookies or made them relatively anonymous, but then Google and others stepped in and stopped it, and came up with this easily ignorable solution instead. Has anyone else heard of this or am I making it up?

Interesting, but I am pretty sure DNT was Mozilla's Idea.

Hmm... From Mozilla Foundation [wikipedia.org] :

The Mozilla Foundation was founded by the Netscape-affiliated Mozilla Organization, and is funded almost exclusively by Google Inc.

"Good will" (3, Interesting)

stafil (1220982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890707)

Anything that leaves your privacy on the "good will" of the companies is inefficient to protect my privacy.

If I do want to protect it, I'll use tools like Ghostery and DNT+ where I can choose *myself* what info I send, and not rely on them honoring the DNT.

I know I will be flagged "flame" but honestly the DNT looks a lot like the "evil bit" to me.

Re:"Good will" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890793)

What you say is exactly right, but it depends on people giving a shit about their own privacy, which 98% of the population doesn't (or they wouldn't be using facebook and google and whatever else), so it's a doomed approach.

It's a little bewildering. Ever since the Eternal September netizens have been acting in a way perfectly consistent with supporting such tracking. Then, the tracking happens, and people act all surprised and indignant. Go figure.

Ghostery's true background (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42893077)

Ghostery's true background (Score:3, Interesting)

"Seems like a lot of people are praising Ghostery, which leads me to believe that you haven't heard the backstory.

Evidon, which makes Ghostery, is an advertising company. They were originally named Better Advertising, Inc., but changed their name for obvious PR reasons. Despite the name change, let's be clear on one thing: their goal still is building better advertising, not protecting consumer privacy. Evidon bought Ghostery, an independent privacy tool that had a good reputation. They took a tool that was originally for watching the trackers online, something people saw as a legitimate privacy tool, and users were understandably concerned. The company said they were just using Ghostery for research. Turns out they had relationships with a bunch of ad companies and were compiling data from which sites you visited when you were using Ghostery, what trackers were on those sites, what ads they were, etc., and building a database to monetize.

When confronted about it, they made their tracking opt-in and called it GhostRank, which is how it exists today. They took an open-source type tool, bought it, turned it from something thatâ(TM)s actually protecting people from the ad industry, to something where the users are actually providing data to the advertisers to make it easier to track them. This is a fundamental conflict of interest.

To sum up: Ghostery makes its money from selling supposedly de-indentified user data about sites visited and ads encountered to marketers and advertisers. You get less privacy, they get more money. That's an inverse relationship. Better Advertising/Evidon continually plays up the story that people should just download Ghostery to help them hide from advertisers. Their motivation to promote it, however, isn't for better privacy; it's because they hope that you'll opt in to GhostRank and send you a bunch of information. They named their company Better Advertising for a reason: their incentive is better advertising, not better privacy."

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2931443&cid=40412193 [slashdot.org]

"I know I will be flagged "flame""

Why, are you a homosexual?

evil bit (4, Funny)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890767)

Next up, being unarmed and begging pretty please shown not to prevent robberies.

This is just like the evil bit. Anything requiring cooperation from assholes is doomed to failure.

Google, MS etc. do not ignore DNT (4, Insightful)

ark1 (873448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890817)

They use it as yet another indicator of your personality to better target ads.

Use Ghostery (2)

Sarusa (104047) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890829)

Relying on the people who want to track you to honor your "Please don't" request is just guaranteeing disappointment.

Now there are plenty of ways you can clamp down on the tracking and cross-site leakage, from NoScript to RefControl, but the single easiest cross-browser cross-platform way to do it is Ghostery: https://www.ghostery.com/ [ghostery.com]

Most importantly, unlike the other methods (NoScript in particular) it only very rarely breaks a page. So it's just set up and forget.

I'm sure it's not as effective as some other tactics, but the 'works on everything' and 'just works' is really key to just using it all the time everywhere.

What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890837)

I don't even understand the point of the "Do not track" feature in web browsers if the websites you visit can forcibly ignore it. Isn't that the whole point of it being there anyway?

Here's a question to the /. crowd; has anyone made an application/program/extension that forcibly makes websites not track you? Has anyone used one? And if so do websites prevent you from viewing their content when it's on?

-And to the point about advertising:
1) Almost zero ads shown to me, apply to me.
2) Didn't someone just post on here that malware is prevalent in legitimate ads? I've know this for a while and so I never click ads ever.
3) There are plenty of extensions that specifically block only ads, and lots of people use them.
So stating that they ignore the do not follow for ad purposes seems moot.

-Anonymous Coward because I'm too lazy to do a "I forgot my password" on /.

Dangerous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42890925)

Exaggerating much? DNT is worthless at most. I don't see any reason why anyone will be able to better protect their own privacy without the existence of DNT. If they don't understand how DNT works, then they likely won't understand how their privacy is violated when they browse the web either. Even when they take other measures and use other tools to avoid being tracked, if they do not understand how tracking works, they will inevitably leak out enough information to get tracked.

This blog post sounds like just another "researcher" looking for attention by making more noise.

trivial, 99% effective fix (2)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42890935)

There is a trivial, 99% effective fix for this problem. In firefox, go to Edit:Preferences:Privacy and tell it to forget all cookies when you end a browser session. There is also a facility for whitelisting cookies from certain sites so that, for example, you don't have to log in to slashdot every time. Cookies from the whitelisted sites are remembered across browser sessions.

Re:trivial, 99% effective fix (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891201)

They can still track by IP address and you're browser fingerprint. Browser fingerprinting can be defeated though current browsers don't seem to want to help make it easier to do so.

I'm not sure what we'll do when IPv6 rolls around and every device has a unique address. Either you go back to NAT and share addresses, which is not completely effective due to fingerprinting, or you change your address every few hours or days. Either solution defeats the purpose of IPv6.

The only real solution is to use adblock, but that's not available on all browsers and isn't possible on certain platforms like mobile devices or consoles.

Re:trivial, 99% effective fix (3, Informative)

dririan (1131339) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891235)

They can still track by IP address and you're browser fingerprint. Browser fingerprinting can be defeated though current browsers don't seem to want to help make it easier to do so.

AC is right. Deleting cookies at the end of each session may help a bit, but there are still plenty of ways to identify you [eff.org] especially if you include your IP address (but that's not always reliable).

I'm not sure what we'll do when IPv6 rolls around and every device has a unique address. Either you go back to NAT and share addresses, which is not completely effective due to fingerprinting, or you change your address every few hours or days. Either solution defeats the purpose of IPv6.

There's already a solution for that. [wikipedia.org] Use the randomly-generated address for normal things, but use your static address for servers and the like. IPv6 privacy extensions are supported on Windows, Mac, and Linux.

Re:trivial, 99% effective fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891273)

I'm not sure what we'll do when IPv6 rolls around and every device has a unique address.

! ! ! Your computer may be broadcasting an IPv6 address ! ! !

Re:trivial, 99% effective fix (1)

Tarmas (954439) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892743)

That's no good for for those of us who put our computers to sleep instead of shutting down.

Re:trivial, 99% effective fix (1)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892763)

That's no good for for those of us who put our computers to sleep instead of shutting down.

The cookies go away when you restart your browser, not just when you shut down your computer.

Re:trivial, 99% effective fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42893153)

That doesn't address this issue [eff.org] .

Re:trivial, 99% effective fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42893303)

There is a trivial, 99% effective fix for this problem. In firefox, go to Edit:Preferences:Privacy and tell it to forget all cookies when you end a browser session. There is also a facility for whitelisting cookies from certain sites so that, for example, you don't have to log in to slashdot every time. Cookies from the whitelisted sites are remembered across browser sessions.

This, and a slew of other reasons is why I am a staunch Opera user. Right-click on any page and set up per-site settings for cookie handling, javascript, redirects, plugins, etc. F12 brings up "Quick Preferences" and you can globally toggle moving images, plugins (Flash), javascript, etc. There is also full content blocking based on IP or URL.

I don't know why any technical person, or privacy caring person, would not use Opera. No, I have nothing to do with the company- I just love a product that works.

Ineffective, yes, but 'dangerous'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891007)

FTA:

The main problem with Do Not Track is that it lulls users into a completely false sense of privacy. Do Not Track works by simply asking the websites youâ(TM)re visiting not to track you â" the websites are completely free to ignore this request, and in most cases itâ(TM)s impossible for the user to find out that their Do Not Track request was in fact discarded.

That's the main problem (the article doesn't claim any secondary problems)? That doesn't make it dangerous. Everyone knows it has no teeth, and anyone unaware of that clearly isn't concerned about online privacy/security to begin with.

I personally will continue to leave the "Do Not Track" box ticked because it is a great idea that is important to support. Think of it this way: If the websites gathering data see only 12% of users have DNT enabled, they'll surmise that nobody minds being tracked so they can continue to ignore it and possibly employ more invasive privacy violations. On the other hand, if these data gathering websites see 65% of users with DNT enabled (even though it may be ineffective), it sends a strong message that people do care about online privacy, and has the potential to encourage stronger privacy solutions.

Just because big companies are openly ignoring their users' wishes to not be tracked is no reason to disable DNT. In fact, the message it sends is that perhaps we need to reconsider what companies we support.

Re:Ineffective, yes, but 'dangerous'? (1)

peppepz (1311345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42893423)

I agree. Like most words in Oldspeak, “dangerous” has a precise meaning and the author is redefining it.

Users who actively enable do not track know what it is and how it works. If they don’t know, then they’re not more in “danger” than if they did, because the only actualisation of that danger, i.e. getting spied by Google et al, lies still there unchanged whether do not track is offered and enabled or not.

Would the author claim that, say, air bags give a false sense of security to drivers and therefore should be abolished?

Didn't everyone see that coming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891035)

What a surprise: sleazy advertisers remain sleazy.

Here's something that I wrote in 2010 on the subject:

Simply put, all of the "opt-out" ideas that I've heard have been horrible. In short, they rely at best on unenforceable behavior and at worst on something that is an inherent contradiction.

Donottrack.gov?

The first "solution" that I've heard proposed is something akin to the popular Do Not Call Registry. There's a fundamental problem with this. How on earth do you determine if a visitor to or user of your site is on the registry? Well... they'd have to present some sort of unique identifier that could be matched up to a central database and... hang on... isn't this starting to sound like what we want to avoid?

Trust the browser, trust the servers

Ok, so let's leave the idea of a "do not track registry" to die in a corner, and instead focus on something that would obviate the need for a unique fingerprint. Let's have the browser send a special header, perhaps something like X-Do-Not-Track that denotes the preference of the user. At first glance, this looks a bit better. We don't have to uniquely identify ourselves, and we're not dependent on a central source of information, ripe for the harvesting. We'll just configure the browser to send something saying that we don't want to be tracked, and sites will act accordingly.

That won't work. Here's why:

        There is a tremendous incentive to track people using it, as they have self-identified as being part of a group that might otherwise be harder to track. (In other words, less competition for those unscrupulous enough to ignore the header.)
        There is no practical way for end-users to determine whether or not the header was received, understood, and obeyed. If I sign up for the "Do Not Call Registry" and a telemarketer calls me, their violation is obvious. If my browser sends a header stating that I don't want to be tracked, but the server ignores (or never receives) it, how can I tell? I can't.
        Few advertising-dependent/marketing-aware companies (if any) are likely to voluntarily undertake the implementation cost, especially since doing so would actually make their job more difficult.
        Legislation mandating compliance with the header (the only remaining option) would likely work about as well as the CAN-SPAM Act has worked: poorly at best, and even then only in places subject to US law. (And that's for a law governing something that is eminently more visible and traceable!)
        Sometimes we do want to be tracked. Pretty much any sane, secure, and usable website with a login system has to do at least some tracking (at a minimum they must keep track of IPs, session IDs, and the association between the two). How exactly is one to enforce that this information only be used for that purpose? The more I think about this, the more I'm reminded of the evil bit: "Track me, but not in a bad way..." While I don't think it's impossible or even unlikely that people with technical know-how could write some decent legislation differentiating between the various sorts of "tracking", I do think it's exceedingly unlikely that Congress would be able to do so.

So at best, we'll have a system that's entirely opt-in on the advertiser side and will only be observed by the most noble companies (but not all of them, and not all the time.) Anyone intent on data mining/tracking/etc. for nefarious purposes will continue to do so, same as before, and will happily ignore the header with absolutely no consequences, while overly-optimistic or misinformed users will feel semi-anonymous.

What a waste.

The Solution

There is no simple solution.

There is no one technology, law, or other magic bullet that will guarantee you privacy on the internet. Sorry.

Instead, you have to use a combination of technologies and tactics to enforce your own privacy policy. As for me? I use CS Lite, HTTPS everywhere, AdBlock Plus, NoScript, HeaderControl, and a rather aggressively-maintained hosts file to limit my trackability. It works pretty well too. My browser doesn't present a User-agent header. I don't accept cookies from any site except those that I pay (or that pay me), and the ones that I do accept cookies from have their cookies destroyed at the end of each browsing session. I don't use Flash. My browser doesn't run JavaScript (I can count the exceptions that rule on one hand, and each of the sites that are whitelisted have an existing financial relationship with me). I have two layers of protection (ABP and /etc/hosts) which attempt to prevent me from even contacting tracking/advertising-related servers. I've configured Iceweasel such that it isn't susceptible to the history information leak.

But I'm not completely invisible, nor do I want to be. I have a domain name and a website, both with copious amounts of personal information. I regularly post on forums, USENET, etc. with either my real name, or a handle that's listed on this site. I buy things online from (a limited number of) online merchants. But I do all that with full knowledge of the "worst-case" scenario, privacy-wise; I actually read the privacy policies of every site I submit information to (yes, in full), and have walked away from things I'd really rather do due to said policies. If I purchase something online, I assume that the details of the transaction are effectively public information, and act accordingly. I only post things to my site that I'm comfortable sharing with the whole world. In short, I make sure that I know *exactly* what I share and who I share it with, take a number of measures to prevent private information from reaching the Web, and employ a number of countermeasures designed to severely hamper marketers' ability to track me without my full and informed consent.

And even that's not perfect.

Adblock + Noscript (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891241)

Ads can go to hell. I've had enough malware served up that I don't give a rat's ass about "ad revenue".

Sorry website owners, your advertisers have proven they cannot be trusted. Until that changes, their ads will not be viewed. If you try to circumvent this, I will gladly do without your useless little site; there are no unique sites on today's Internet.

It's not tracking that is the problem (1)

twistofsin (718250) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891509)

It's intrusive and/or obnoxious behavior. I don't use a form of ad blocking on all my machines, and the ones I see that I can confidently say are influenced by the other sites I've visited are generally tolerable. Compared to the canned ads for the wireless company/car manufacturer/etc that has a contract with the media company who bought out a website I frequent they look reasonable. They generally don't autoplay any audio or video, nor do they take up my whole screen if my mouse accidentally violates their airspace.

Evil bit? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891735)

It sounds like a serious comittee and companies got an inspiration from the Evil Bit proposal, even though that one was an april fools joke.

Government will get involved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42891913)

Eventually the government will get involved "for the children" or "for the " and will create computer registration, aka Computer Safety. Remotely installable "Assult Software" will be banned and only applications approved by the local Housing Authority will be approved, unless you take a computer safety course with the appropriate insurance purchased, of course. Houses with more than 5 computer will eventually be banned and zoning restrictions, for energy conservation, of course, will be enforced with rigor.

Re:Government will get involved (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892451)

Could you please be quiet? I can already see some pencil pusher go "hey, good idea!"

Lack Of Trust (1)

EXTomar (78739) | about a year and a half ago | (#42891993)

Both in terms of the idea and design. There is no level of Trust in the design of "Do Not Track". The server on the other end has no real obligation to honor the flag. The client has no real way to check if it is honoring the flag.

Also something people miss: You can't legislate trust. How do you prove violations? Random audits on paper sound like the way to tackle conformance but again who is building that tool? Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc? Again we have a lack of trust....

It's not about whether the site honors it or not (3, Interesting)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892005)

For me, I don't care whether the site honors that header or not. If they're going to abuse tracking, they're not likely to suddenly come over all ethical and change their servers to not track. What the DNT header does is give a standard, recognized signal present in every single browser request that I do not consent to tracking. It's like the fence with the locked gates and "Private Property - No Trespassing" signs around a property: it's not going to keep trespassers out, but it's a clear and more importantly legally-recognized demarcation. If they jump over the fence onto my land and get in trouble because of being there, the court's going to look at the fact the land was clearly posted and tell them "Sorry, we don't accept your claim that you didn't know it was private property.". With the DNT header, no Web site can claim they didn't know I didn't consent to tracking. They can't claim implicit consent, because there's explicit non-consent in the very request they serviced. And this is why the advertisers are making such a play to get the DNT header dismissed and abandoned. Up to now they've taken the position of "You must consent as a condition of access, you accessed so we can assume your consent.". As long as there's no standard way of saying "I do not consent.", they can get away with that. But with a standard DNT header they can't argue that it's infeasible to check every possible way of not consenting. There's just one, and it's not ambiguous. The counter-argument of "If they don't want to allow access to those who don't consent, why did they not simply return an HTTP error when they saw the DNT header?" becomes rather more convincing.

The secret the advertisers don't want to state up front is that they don't want to require consent to tracking. They just want to track everybody whether they consent or not. Anything that provides a clear, unambiguous message to them about consent or lack thereof is a threat to that position, because it makes it harder for them to argue a basis for their assuming consent.

And a message to every Web-site and ad-network operator out there: if you're serious, stop whining and configure your servers to return 403 Forbidden to every request with the DNT header set. It's not that hard.

Re:It's not about whether the site honors it or no (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892183)

I'm surprised that this is a minority view. This is a legal issue. There are no technical means to utterly prevent tracking, but this provides a legal means for punishing people who do it. Anyone who says DNT is harmful is selling something, or bought something stupid from someone who is.

Re:It's not about whether the site honors it or no (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892437)

Hmm... if someone comes illegally onto my property after I clearly marked it, I may shoot him in defense. Say... does that work on that DNT too?

Please, oh please say yes...

BUY A GUN AND KILL PEOPLE (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892055)

That is the only way this will ever change. Otherwise, its all fucking useless words.

Re:BUY A GUN AND KILL PEOPLE (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892429)

Ya know, last time I checked it was still illegal.

And I bet it's been lobbied into existence by some manager who wanted to make sure we can't get rid of 'em... sneaky bastards...

Nobody Uses It Anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42892209)

Just use a good ad and cookie blocker, and Do Not Track becomes a moot issue. My cookie blocker allows me to alternate between blocking the cookie entirely, replying with random gibberish, or replying with whatever crap I want to put into it. "123';drop table;" is a favorite, though I don't resort to that unless the web site blocks the back button or uses popunders or commits some similar sin that is deserving of such a response.

So how come only Google was sued? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42892297)

I suspect Microsoft is behind a lot of the litigation against Google. And in almost every case, Microsoft is doing the same thing.

Great (1)

darkfeline (1890882) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892327)

We've created a completely, utterly useless specification that every single (mainstream) browser now implements as a feature. In all, countless megabytes (gigabytes?) and countless manhours and processing-hours have been wasted, all for the sake of doing nothing.

Of course, anyone with half a brain saw this coming.

They can track me, I just don't want to see ads. (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892633)

My subject says it all. I don't really care about being tracked, I just really don't want to see *any* ads and will actively block obtrusive or irrelevant ads through various browser extensions and Proxomitron.

DNT by Default (1)

PhrstBrn (751463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892671)

You mean, when all the major browsers enable DNT by default, everybody ends up just ignoring the flag, putting us back to where we started? I'm shocked.

DIY Do not track (1)

wakeboarder (2695839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42892845)

Hosts file and no script, only enable the stuff that you need. Plus with all of that worthless javascript wasting cpu cycles and memory gone, you can use your computers resources for something more useful, like a hundred more tabs.

Well, now I'm beginning to question the efficacy (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#42893269)

Of my "Please Do Not Mug" t-shirt.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?