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!

5 Years Later, 'Do Not Track' System Ineffective

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the never-track-me-unless-you-feel-like-tracking-me dept.

Advertising 254

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from ComputerWorld: "In 2009, a few Internet privacy advocates developed an idea that was supposed to give people a way to tell websites they don't want to be monitored as they move from website to website. The mechanism, which would eventually be built into all the major browsers, was called Do Not Track. ... But today, DNT hangs by a thread, neutered by a failure among stakeholders to reach agreement. Yes, if you turn it on in your browser, it sends a signal in the form of an HTTP header to Web companies' servers. But it probably won't change what data they collect. That's because most websites either don't honor DNT — it's currently a voluntary system — or they interpret it in different ways. Another problem — perhaps the biggest — is that Web companies, ad agencies and the other stakeholders have never reached agreement on what "do not track" really means."

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

Why would anyone want it? (1, Insightful)

mozumder (178398) | about 5 months ago | (#47065705)

Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want.

Do-not-track only means you're going to end up with ads you hate. It's not a "do-not-advertise". It's not going to stop ads at all.

Right now, most geeks think of advertising as bad things, because they hate the ads served to them as geeks are a horrible audience demographic. They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.

Besides, it's the website that decides how they want to treat their audience, not the viewer. The only thing the viewer can/should do is to not visit the website in the first place if they feel their usage rights are violated, and right now, no one is going to miss losing an audience demographic of geeks.

Re:Why would anyone want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065769)

Meatloaf's blog has talked about this extensively and once you have read his contributions theres not really much more to say on the subject. Criticise his music all you like but his contributions to the Linux kernel and online rights education are phenomenal.

Re:Why would anyone want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065983)

Can I have a link to his blog, please?

Re:Why would anyone want it? (4, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | about 5 months ago | (#47065775)

"Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want."

Don't care. I don't see any ads, 'wanted' or not.

Adblock+Ghostery+a Refererblocker works for me.

Re:Why would anyone want it? (1)

Imagix (695350) | about 5 months ago | (#47065851)

Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want.

If only they weren't lying. I don't want _any_ of the ads.

Re:Why would anyone want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066991)

Plus, the usual trend is to get ads that are actually stale. For example, my father bought a snowblower for the winter and still sees ads for them. Yesterday, it got up to 90 degrees where he is, so I don't think he'll be getting another. But the point remains; most targeted ads are actually reactionary ads and, by their very nature, are not relevant to my current needs.

Re:Why would anyone want it? (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 5 months ago | (#47066009)

I gave up on ghostery. they're not bad guys (they cannot be trusted).

use 'disconnect' instead.

Re:Why would anyone want it? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 5 months ago | (#47066371)

Ive come to the conclusion that using ANYTHING in conjunction with adblock is a bad idea-- they seem to overlap and cause conflicts, and adblock already attempts to do the stuff that Ghostery / disconnect / etc do.

AdBlock & Ghostery = Inferior + 'Souled-Out' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066217)

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

I asked Wladimir Palant a question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066747)

By email if "Almost All Ads Blocked" does these things (after he emailed 1st stating "hosts are a shitty solution"):

---

1.) Block malware/malscripted sites (not just adbanners with bad code)
2.) Block out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware (especially "fastflux" types, the predominant design that uses host-domain names vs. IP addresses (far easier to 'kill' in the latter is why)).
3.) Block Bogus DNS servers malware makers use (via fastflux + rogue DNS servers).
4.) Block Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Block known PHISHERS.
6.) Block TRACKERS.
7.) Block SPAMMERS.
8.) Get you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking adbanners + hardcoding your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Add reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers - since most are NOT patched vs. the Kaminsky flaw).
10.) Add "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD derived IP stack & hosts 99.999% of the time).
13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org]
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them WITHOUT having to know regexp.

---

* Can you tell me WHY he refuses to reply?

(He knows that if he admits hosts are more versatile, superior, & efficient than AdBlock - he's done: ClarityRay's going to assure that anyhow)

APK

P.S.=> Palant also said "You're ignoring facts"? Please - His reasoning's flawed!

AdBlock or any browser addon doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts can in added speed, security, reliability, or anonymity vs. APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] )!

... apk

Re:I asked Wladimir Palant a question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47067225)

Just so you know, one thing you can tell is that you don't understand how to scale horizontally (stalking individuals who criticize you or your software on an ad hoc basis), and you don't have a sense of proportion. Given that, no-one sane should ever let you near anything related to their security or privacy.

The author of the above software is not stable. (2, Informative)

mmell (832646) | about 5 months ago | (#47066959)

The author of the above mentioned software has been banned from multiple public participation websites due to intentional abuses of those forums. His repeated, vociferous cyberstalking of anybody who is in any way critical of his software's value is (to me) an indication of his mental instability; using software written by an individual who cannot be counted upon to behave in a socially acceptable manner is begging disaster.

Too bad - this is precisely this kind of situation where hostfiles can represent a good technical measure to counteract tracking behavior. It's a shame that this particular piece of software is authored by an unreliable individual. While hostfiles are a valid and effective technical countermeasure to website tracking, the author of this particular hostfile manager has often and repeatedly displayed his instability in multiple online forums. Simply google on Alexander Peter Kowalski. I believe any intelligent research will convince users that permitting software written by APK to run in kernelspace is dangerous at best. The software may or may not be just fine, but the software's author has already demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to make rational, acceptable decisions.

Fortunately, the cyberstalking behavior APK has repeatedly demonstrated is almost certainly a compulsive, involuntary behavior on his part. I have no doubt that soon he will demonstrate fully the exact instability I have pointed out here. C'mon, Allie - post a bunch of links to your past posts, or call me "bigmouth" again. I'd say pick the most bellicose and insulting of your past posts; but nearly all of your cyberstalking is consistently offensive and insulting, indicative of a juvenile intellect. Instead of contstantly reposting the same insults and invective, give us something new to gauge your mental state from.

...msm

Smart enough to shut AdBlock's author up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47067021)

You too, mmell ("Run, Forrest - RUN!!!") -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

* FIRST, you erroneously described my app as a DNS replacement? WRONG - It works WITH DNS, overcoming its redirect security flaws if anything!

** SECOND, you called my app a malware, & then "suddenly Satan TURNED TO CHRIST", & you recanted it (because you were butthurt & ANGRY I got the best of you, with facts, as always with ANY 'naysayer' detractor OR libeler... easily!)

APK

P.S.=> HOWEVER - This was the most REPREHENSIBLE THING you did, saying I "like little boys" etc. (& YOU CALL ME unstable mentally? Please... lol!) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

... apk

Right on time! (3, Insightful)

mmell (832646) | about 5 months ago | (#47067227)

And almost exactly as predicted.

Re:Smart enough to shut AdBlock's author up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47067261)

You're one of the more well-known /. loonies APK. Congrats?

Re:Why would anyone want it? (3, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | about 5 months ago | (#47066693)

Use RequestPolicy. It makes both AdBlock and Ghostery obsolete -- by referencing 3rd party servers on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. It might be a bit tedious to use the first time you visit a new website, but almost always it's obvious what needs to be unblocked.

RequestPolicy = Inferior to HOSTS (see "A") (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066877)

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

I asked Wladir Palant of AdBlock a question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066897)

By email if "Almost All Ads Blocked" does these things (after he emailed 1st stating "hosts are a shitty solution"):

---

1.) Block malware/malscripted sites (not just adbanners with bad code)
2.) Block out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware (especially "fastflux" types, the predominant design that uses host-domain names vs. IP addresses (far easier to 'kill' in the latter is why)).
3.) Block Bogus DNS servers malware makers use (via fastflux + rogue DNS servers).
4.) Block Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Block known PHISHERS.
6.) Block TRACKERS.
7.) Block SPAMMERS.
8.) Get you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking adbanners + hardcoding your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Add reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers - since most are NOT patched vs. the Kaminsky flaw).
10.) Add "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD derived IP stack & hosts 99.999% of the time).
13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org]
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them WITHOUT having to know regexp.

---

* Can you tell me WHY he refuses to reply?

(He knows that if he admits hosts are more versatile, superior, & efficient than AdBlock - he's done: ClarityRay's going to assure that anyhow)

APK

P.S.=> Palant also said "You're ignoring facts"? Please - His reasoning's flawed!

AdBlock or any browser addon doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts can in added speed, security, reliability, or anonymity vs. APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] )!

... apk

Re:Why would anyone want it? (4, Insightful)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 5 months ago | (#47065939)

Right now, most geeks think of advertising as bad things, because they hate the ads served to them as geeks are a horrible audience demographic. They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.

No -- that's certainly not why people buy newspapers, except for those people who just want the coupon section (which is generally segregated from the rest of the paper). Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?

As for magazines, there are some which clearly seem to be able the ads -- particularly style magazines and such. Mostly it's something to allow people to drool over clothes and other luxury fashion items they can't afford (or could barely afford). But yeah -- SOME magazines seem to be bought for the ads.

Many others, however, like ones focused on news or politics or science or literature or whatever, are definitely not about the ads. At best, they're a minor annoyance that readers put up with -- very few people buy a copy of Scientific American or The New Yorker for the ads. In some cases, like trade magazines or foodie magazines, the ads can be targeted better, so I can see how some people want that.

In any case, the point is that "in the real world" people do NOT want advertising incessantly. How many people prefer to watch TV with advertisements thrown in (other than as a break to go to the bathroom or get a sandwich)? If everybody did, there would be little reason for technology that allows you to record and fast forward through the commercials.

People are often happy to receive ads on their terms and when they want to receive them. They know what they're getting if they buy a newspaper for the coupon section or if they buy a magazine 90% full of photos of expensive designer clothing ads.

But "real everyday people" are just as annoyed by pop-up ads or random ad interjections getting in their way of accomplishing tasks as anyone else is. And, let's face it, that's what MOST of the advertising on the web is. If I want to buy something on the web, I go to a freakin' merchant site and browse for things. It's not like I have to go out and buy a magazine to show me ads for designer clothes, when I can just go to the websites of the companies that sell this stuff and see the stuff directly!

In sum -- yeah, sometimes people buy things that have ads when they want to see ads. But on the internet, people often just want to get tasks done too -- whether it's sending email via webmail or interacting on Facebook or whatever. I have NEVER EVER in my life heard a person say, "Gee -- I really love how Facebook keeps adding more ads to my newsfeed" or "I really wish that my webmail would have more pop-ups to get in my way when I'm trying to read a message."

Re:Why would anyone want it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066211)

I buy Playboy just for the ads.

Of course, it's only to drool over the luxury centerfolds that I couldn't possibly afford.

Re:Why would anyone want it? (5, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 5 months ago | (#47066701)

Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?

You must be a youngun'. Back in the pre-web days there were magazines that were pretty much 100% ads. "Computer Shopper" was one. "Nuts & Volts" was 90% ads. The best part of PC Magazine was the page of tombstone ads at the very back of the magazine, often for some weird product from a garage start-up. I have bought many, many newspapers/magazines "just for the ads".

Re:Why would anyone want it? (0)

mozumder (178398) | about 5 months ago | (#47066783)

No -- that's certainly not why people buy newspapers, except for those people who just want the coupon section (which is generally segregated from the rest of the paper). Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?

People buy the sunday paper because of the ads. The big coupon supplement is the whole reason to buy it.

As for magazines, there are some which clearly seem to be able the ads -- particularly style magazines and such. Mostly it's something to allow people to drool over clothes and other luxury fashion items they can't afford (or could barely afford). But yeah -- SOME magazines seem to be bought for the ads.

Not just some, MOST magazines that have a growth business model exist because people buy them for the ads.

The ones that people don't buy for the ads, like news magazines, are the only ones that are dying. Look at the MPA reports on magazine circulation numbers by years, and you can spot the trend. The ones people buy for the ads, like fashion, home shit, etc.. are all actually growing.

In sum -- yeah, sometimes people buy things that have ads when they want to see ads. But on the internet, people often just want to get tasks done too -- whether it's sending email via webmail or interacting on Facebook or whatever. I have NEVER EVER in my life heard a person say, "Gee -- I really love how Facebook keeps adding more ads to my newsfeed" or "I really wish that my webmail would have more pop-ups to get in my way when I'm trying to read a message."

You're not in the target market for the ads you see, then.

You really should study how people in the real world respond to advertising... they fucking love it. A fashion shopper goes apeshit when they see their favorite Miu Miu shoes go on sale at Net-a-porter. They get so excited that they email their friends about telling them to buy it.

Do you? Of course not, because you are a narcissist libertarian geek. You think you are important, even though you are a lowly geek.

It is only the narcissist libertarian geek that tries to avoid ads. "I'm so important, look at me, I hate advertising because i am more important than advertisers. I am so important that I don't want ads on the website I don't pay to visit! Look at me! WEEE!"

Do you think people watch the Superbowl, the BIGGEST EVENT on television, because of the teams?

It's amazing how little narcissistic libertarian geeks know about real-world social norms. Just amazing.

There's a reason your favorite ad-blockers aren't used by fashion shoppers, aka the majority of the population that prefers to look good with expensive clothes than look like an ugly nerd with no sense of fashion taste and low social status because of their lack of taste.

Why would anyone want it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066025)

Cookie tracking means you're getting spammed with ads you DO want, instead of the ads you don't want.

Do-not-track only means you're going to end up with ads you hate. It's not a "do-not-advertise". It's not going to stop ads at all.

Right now, most geeks think of advertising as bad things, because they hate the ads served to them as geeks are a horrible audience demographic. They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.

Besides, it's the website that decides how they want to treat their audience, not the viewer. The only thing the viewer can/should do is to not visit the website in the first place if they feel their usage rights are violated, and right now, no one is going to miss losing an audience demographic of geeks.

Completely disagree, there's a huge difference in what people are willing to --tolerate-- and what people do not want. The article is about these ads collecting data on you, and because of ignorance/arrogance no ones knows the extent of what they are collecting. Your notion of advertising is delusional, when it comes to a brick and mortar stores, yes people have interest in it, but the ads don't track your every move, you read them, throw them away.

It's the types of abuse collecting data can provide, pretty much a physiological, detailed profile of a person. And that isn't from logging in, creating an account then filling out all the attributes with your real life information on social sites, websites, credit/bank cards ect.. What they are doing really is no better then the NSA. And their proving to be another corporate industry that owns politicians, this should have been dealt with by them, and yet all we hear is about the NSA, but nothing about the companies who are doing the same and not being halted/punished for it.

Re:Why would anyone want it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066607)

There have been plenty of malware issues traced through compromised ad servers. Until the ad guys can get their stuff secure, any competant IT person will treat those sites as potentially dangerous. At best, they invade privacy. At worst, they can compromise an entire enterprise.

Re:Why would anyone want it? (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 5 months ago | (#47066137)

That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.

That's like saying I buy Playboy for the articles. I NEVER bought magazines/newspapers for the ads; I bought them for the content.

Re:Why would anyone want it? (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 5 months ago | (#47066375)

They don't know, that in the real world, people actually WANT advertising. That's why people buy things like newspapers and magazines, BECAUSE of the ads.

Wrong.

In the days before the World Wide Web existed I bought Computer Shopper magazine for the ads (the whole magazine was 95% ads). But that's the rare exception. People DO NOT want ads and they especially do not want the annoying, obnoxious ads that have become so prevalent.

Re:Why would anyone want it? (0)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 5 months ago | (#47067023)

Do-not-track only means you're going to end up with ads you hate. It's not a "do-not-advertise". It's not going to stop ads at all.

are you a google shill? because you're doing a great job attempting to spin their bs lies.

DO NOT TRACK means exactly what it says. don't track my movements, don't put me in a huge database, don't intrude on my life and spy on my behavior. It should be the functional equivalent of surfing in "incognito" mode.

goog tried to subvert this into "do not serve targeted ads" which basically means they'll still track you.

I'm glad you worked really well from the political propaganda playbook that redefined words to mean the opposite. You're the most recent in a proud line from Stalin to Pailn.

Never would work - You can trust them (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065709)

You can't trust ad agencies even if it was spelled out in law. There are always parties who just don't care about anything but making money.

If you want to not be tracked use some anonymizing technologies.

Re:Never would work - You can trust them (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 5 months ago | (#47066395)

There are always parties who just don't care about anything but making money.

Theyre called "businesses".

Re:Never would work - You can trust them (3, Insightful)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 5 months ago | (#47066853)

"Please Do Not Track me, thank you."

"What? You're still tracking me? I asked you nicely, can you not respect my wishes? Alright, it's Adblock all the way for you from now on."

Thugs will be thugs. Might as well ask your killer not to kill you, or your rapist not to rape you.

Re:Never would work - You can trust them (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47067027)

Having gone through this exercise of asking nicely to not be tracked, we are now protected against any accusations of over-reaction on our part when we defend ourselves from tracking by technological and legal means.

Re:Never would work - You can trust them (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#47067149)

If you want to not be tracked use some anonymizing technologies.

The problem with Do Not Track all along is that it has been voluntary. People who don't want to honor it just don't honor it.

OP's argument that "stakeholders" (a very misleading term here) can't agree on what it means is just plain BS. Everybody knows what it means. They just can't agree on which deliberately distorted interpretation of it best fits their business.

It never did have a chance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065717)

Being "voluntary" doesn't make it work.

Which is why things that DO work (like the various ad block plugins) are frowned on...

AdBlock/Ghostery/RequestPolicy = inferior (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066311)

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apkreliability

I asked Wladimir Palant a question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066845)

By email if "Almost All Ads Blocked" does these things (after he emailed 1st stating "hosts are a shitty solution"):

---

1.) Block malware/malscripted sites (not just adbanners with bad code)
2.) Block out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware (especially "fastflux" types, the predominant design that uses host-domain names vs. IP addresses (far easier to 'kill' in the latter is why)).
3.) Block Bogus DNS servers malware makers use (via fastflux + rogue DNS servers).
4.) Block Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Block known PHISHERS.
6.) Block TRACKERS.
7.) Block SPAMMERS.
8.) Get you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking adbanners + hardcoding your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Add reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers - since most are NOT patched vs. the Kaminsky flaw).
10.) Add "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD derived IP stack & hosts 99.999% of the time).
13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org]
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them WITHOUT having to know regexp.

---

* Can you tell me WHY he refuses to reply?

(He knows that if he admits hosts are more versatile, superior, & efficient than AdBlock - he's done: ClarityRay's going to assure that anyhow)

APK

P.S.=> Palant also said "You're ignoring facts"? Please - His reasoning's flawed!

AdBlock or any browser addon doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts can in added speed, security, reliability, or anonymity vs. APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] )!

... apk

True (1)

bswarm (2540294) | about 5 months ago | (#47065723)

I bought an mp3 on Amazon, went to facebook on the same tab before closing my browser, and found an ad for the same song had slipped through adblocker.

Re:True (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065791)

You should have buyed ogg! ogg sounds better!

Re:True (1)

bswarm (2540294) | about 5 months ago | (#47065841)

I prefer flac but Amazon only had mp3. And, It wasn't available anywhere else.

Re:True (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065815)

I find the adverts for something I've just bought even more pointless, I'm hardly going to buy it twice !

Re: True (1)

Rodolfo Martinez (3663295) | about 5 months ago | (#47066073)

Yes I too have received ads for things I have just bought, but remember client retention and mitigating buyer's remorse can be as important as new sales.

Re:True (1)

PPH (736903) | about 5 months ago | (#47066175)

Crack?

Re:True (1)

Coniptor (22220) | about 5 months ago | (#47066891)

window.name

Window Name Eraser for chrome.
Nothing for Firefox as yet.

It was never going to work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065733)

The advertising companies were never going to just sit there and let people casually tell them not to make money. The only way you'll ever have privacy is by taking it, not by trusting someone to give it to you.

You don't say.. (3, Funny)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | about 5 months ago | (#47065755)

Also: water: wet. Sky: blue. Rob Ford: drunk and high.

More at 11.

EFF's Privacy Badger (2)

P0ltergeist333 (1473899) | about 5 months ago | (#47065799)

I use a script blocker and am testing out EFF's Privacy Badger: https://www.eff.org/privacybad... [eff.org]

I feel pretty well about my privacy from private enterprises, and luckily I have nothing to hide from the NSA.

Re:EFF's Privacy Badger (2)

NewWorldDan (899800) | about 5 months ago | (#47065867)

I use a DNS (hosts file) based ad blocker. Works great. Although I'm less concerned about being tracked than I am about someone using ad networks as a vector for malware.

I'm not opposed to advertising, but until ad networks can be trusted, I'm going to leave the blocks in place.

Re:EFF's Privacy Badger (1)

qbast (1265706) | about 5 months ago | (#47066041)

I use a DNS (hosts file) based ad blocker.

Don't even use these words. They attract crazy posts from insane troll.

You're more than welcome (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066191)

To validly technically disprove 17 points on hosts adding security, speed, reliability, & anonymity for users of them online enumerated here http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

*:)

(Good Luck - you'll NEED it: More like a miracle, since those points are completely valid & SOLID AS A ROCK!)

APK

P.S.=> "Onwards & UPWARDS..."

... apk

You'll LOVE this then (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066139)

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

I asked Wladimir Palant a question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066769)

By email if "Almost All Ads Blocked" does these things (after he emailed 1st stating "hosts are a shitty solution"):

---

1.) Block malware/malscripted sites (not just adbanners with bad code)
2.) Block out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware (especially "fastflux" types, the predominant design that uses host-domain names vs. IP addresses (far easier to 'kill' in the latter is why)).
3.) Block Bogus DNS servers malware makers use (via fastflux + rogue DNS servers).
4.) Block Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Block known PHISHERS.
6.) Block TRACKERS.
7.) Block SPAMMERS.
8.) Get you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking adbanners + hardcoding your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Add reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers - since most are NOT patched vs. the Kaminsky flaw).
10.) Add "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD derived IP stack & hosts 99.999% of the time).
13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org]
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them WITHOUT having to know regexp.

---

* Can you tell me WHY he refuses to reply?

(He knows that if he admits hosts are more versatile, superior, & efficient than AdBlock - he's done: ClarityRay's going to assure that anyhow)

APK

P.S.=> Palant also said "You're ignoring facts"? Please - His reasoning's flawed!

AdBlock or any browser addon doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts can in added speed, security, reliability, or anonymity vs. APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] )!

... apk

Re:EFF's Privacy Badger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065935)

I am also trying out the Privacy Badger, and I can report that with use there have been no bad side effects to date.

Re:EFF's Privacy Badger (1)

Coniptor (22220) | about 5 months ago | (#47066931)

Bad side effects: Forces DNT:1 header regardless of firefox preferences set.
Examine ip-check.info to know why this would matter.

Re:EFF's Privacy Badger (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065981)

I use a script blocker and am testing out EFF's Privacy Badger: https://www.eff.org/privacybad... [eff.org]

I feel pretty well about my privacy from private enterprises, and luckily I have nothing to hide from the NSA.

The problem with not opposing the likes of the NSA while their power is still growing (because, hey... you have nothing to hide) is that in most police states the paranoia of the regime tends to grow over time and so does the set of things that are considered to justify surveillance and eventually... punishment (i.e one morning you wake up and find that the definition of 'things to hide' has changed while you were sleeping and you suddenly have things to hide after all). My grandparents survived the Third Reich. The police surveillance complex was initially justified as begin aimed at communist subversives, then social democrats, the all other political opposition, then the Jews and Catholics and by 1945 people were being dragged into the street and shot in the back of the neck for listing to the BBC or giving a pot of soup to starving Soviet POWs. Whether you are talking about government or corporate surveillance the problem is the same. The longer these tossers allowed to continue to grow their surveillance activities unopposed the harder it becomes to kick their nose out of every single corner of your existence and if you allow them to go unchallenged for too long they'll own your ass.

I said do not track! (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 5 months ago | (#47065803)

Web companies, ad agencies and the other stakeholders have never reached agreement on what "do not track" really means.

Said one CEO, "I thought it was for the NSA."

Re:I said do not track! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065957)

I thought it meant that individuals would not track the ad agencies.

I think you have that backwards (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 months ago | (#47065811)

Another problem â" perhaps the biggest â" is that Web companies, ad agencies and the other stakeholders have never reached agreement on what "do not track" really means.

"Do not track" is dead because the meaning is so obvious that they couldn't find a way to gut its meaning while pretending to give it lip service.

Re:I think you have that backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066321)

Why do the slashdot scores stop at 5? Some comments deserve a 6.

Re:I think you have that backwards (-1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 5 months ago | (#47066683)

Web companies/ad agencies. Will build popular web tools that cost them Millions of dollars to be that can make your life easier and we give it to you for no cost. We will make our money off of adds. The better we know you the better adds we can target, and charge the company who wants to put adds in more.

Then people go. No No don't track us while we leach off your expensive tools and infrastructure.

Re: I think you have that backwards (2)

f16c (13581) | about 5 months ago | (#47067241)

Most of the tools might be yours but the infrastructure was paid for by your customers, not your business. You didn't build that out of your pocket, you built it out of ours. Just like the roads, electric grid and the phone systems. Your customers paid for it. Business may be how some things are built but the capitol never comes from the businesses but from society at large. Quit taking credit for the money if others, asshole. Revisionist Capitalist jackass!

Class action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065843)

Maybe they change after a class action lawsuit with 300 million plaintiffs. What's the per-person damage of 5 years of unauthorized tracking? Times 300 million?

"A Contract" (4, Insightful)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 5 months ago | (#47065845)

"Do not track"?

Everyone wants everything for free, and so there is advertising.

The entire idea of "do not track" was ludicrous.

Everyone wants their free lunches with no strings attached, but there will always be strings.

Re:"A Contract" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47065915)

Ads are one thing, but tracking and building up a internet profile is another

Re:"A Contract" (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#47066017)

NO. People just don't want the web equivalent of a radio collar attached to them. They do not want to be stalked by creepy advertisers. They can advertise without stalking. Advertising survived and flourished for centuries without stalking.

Re:"A Contract" (5, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | about 5 months ago | (#47066115)

People just don't want the web equivalent of a radio collar attached to them. They do not want to be stalked by creepy advertisers.

And for me, that is one of the main reasons I quite aggressively block as much of this shit as possible.

Between companies like bright cove, scorecard research, and the literally dozens of tracking companies on the average web page, I have found I simply won't use the web without things like NoScript, and Ghostery, and as many as I can find for the browser I'm using.

Some web pages literally have 25 (or more in some cases) external entities who want to track what I do .. Facebook, Linked in, Google Analytics, and countless piles of crap.

I don't give a crap about your revenue model or your social media campaign -- I sure as hell didn't sign up for 50 entities I've never heard of knowing every site I visit.

Thankfully, there are plenty of really good privacy extensions out there. The more you have, the better. Because it's astounding just how much complete shit is embedded in every page -- which is not only bleeding out your personal information, but using up your bandwidth.

Ghostery = Infeiror + 'Souled-Out' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066465)

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

I asked Wladir Palant of AdBlock a question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066719)

By email if "Almost All Ads Blocked" does these things (after he emailed 1st stating "hosts are a shitty solution"):

---

1.) Block malware/malscripted sites (not just adbanners with bad code)
2.) Block out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware (especially "fastflux" types, the predominant design that uses host-domain names vs. IP addresses (far easier to 'kill' in the latter is why)).
3.) Block Bogus DNS servers malware makers use (via fastflux + rogue DNS servers).
4.) Block Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Block known PHISHERS.
6.) Block TRACKERS.
7.) Block SPAMMERS.
8.) Get you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking adbanners + hardcoding your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Add reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers - since most are NOT patched vs. the Kaminsky flaw).
10.) Add "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD derived IP stack & hosts 99.999% of the time).
13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org]
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them WITHOUT having to know regexp.

---

* Can you tell me WHY he refuses to reply?

(He knows that if he admits hosts are more versatile, superior, & efficient than AdBlock - he's done: ClarityRay's going to assure that anyhow)

APK

P.S.=> Palant also said "You're ignoring facts"? Please - His reasoning's flawed!

AdBlock or any browser addon doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts can in added speed, security, reliability, or anonymity vs. APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] )!

... apk

Re:"A Contract" (1)

0a100b (456593) | about 5 months ago | (#47066553)

Exactly, the euphemism "tracking" should be dropped and it should be called by its proper name: stalking.
I hope, most likely in vain, that cyberstalking laws could (one day) be used against these stalking advertisers.

Re:"A Contract" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066093)

My free lunch is paid for with a ludicrously high monthly bill from my ISP.

Re:"A Contract" (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 5 months ago | (#47066299)

Done it say do not advertise?? In my book spying on consumers that don't want to be spied apon make bad customers. Like me, I've never ever clicked on an AD ever on purpose. I have been tricked into clicking ads guess what? I've never ever bought anything ever. Get it? You can still advertise, you make ads relevant TO THE SITE VISTED or is that too hard? that is IMO

Re:"A Contract" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066441)

Some people try to earn a living by providing content, while others get their income elsewhere and can thus provide content for free. Therefore, there exist people who can provide content for free without having any need to steal information from their users and profiting from it.

I would be perfectly happy with an Internet where only free (as in beer) content was published. Youtube may be handy, but if they shut down their service as a consequence of tracking becoming illegal, I am certain that there would be other video sharing websites that would keep providing content for free.

Re:"A Contract" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066571)

I'm fine with advertising, and ad-supported services. I have even (gasp) clicked on adverts that looked interesting on a handful of occasions, and made purchases because of them.

I don't mind Amazon tracking my purchases through Amazon and suggesting things they think I'd be interested in; in fact it's actually pretty useful.

Advertising woodworking tools on a site about woodworking is probably a good idea, but trying to profile me across multiple sessions, devices and locations because I once bought a drill bit, so I must be super-interested in buying a drill is both creepy and counter-productive. Nine times out of ten, if I look for something I either find and buy it right then, or fail to find anything that meets the requirements and change the requirements. I've never once thought, whilst browsing around for something unrelated, "hey, look: there's an ad for the thing I didn't buy last week! Now's my chance!".

To use a print analogy: magazines have had ads in them for years, based on the demographics and interests of their readers. Web tracking is the equivalent of embedding a tiny spy camera in each and every magazine page to track your eyes whilst you read, share that info with every other magazine, and change the ads in your copy to fit the articles you've spend the most time reading.

As well as being fucking creepy, all the bloat of tracking slows me down (especially on mobile) and opens me to security risks. Throw in obnoxious, distracting ads, and I have no qualms about using adblock, and whitelisting sites that I use frequently and don't have over-the-top ads.

Re:"A Contract" (1)

Technician (215283) | about 5 months ago | (#47066589)

Do not track does not prohibit advertising. It is privacy for which websites you visit. Advertisers love that info to target ads and talor them to their target demographic. Let's face it, most beginning programmers are not interested in golf clubs. A guy shopping for an RV is a much better target.

Back on topic, I f I have an online persona that may be a grey area and I don't want a future employer to find out, while using a public hotspot, I could use a PC without a hard drive to boot from a Live CD to do my grey activities and then power down when done. Later in normal browsing that session is not associated with the other persona.

Example uses could be for protection on a whistle blower case. Your employer would not have a clue unless you provided unique information that only you had access to.

Logging in at work everything would be normal. Logging in at home only normal activities are in your history with your browser and ISP. A raid etc will come up clean of whistle blower materials.

There is nothing unique about an Ubuntu installation CD or DVD in your media that can tie you to your contacts with the press about the leaking drums of industrial solvent burried out back.

There are legit uses for do not track. Leave no fingerprints behind.

Re:"A Contract" (2)

Vokkyt (739289) | about 5 months ago | (#47067047)

If they don't want to offer up the content to those with adblockers or other DNT indicators, then they should just bite the bullet and do so.

It's not that people want their lunch for free, it's that they were provided a lunch without ever discussing the price and then hit with a price some folk didn't want to pay. It doesn't help that the price can often be a lot more than just the annoyance of an advertisement. Drive-by attacked from ads that don't get vetted are still a common reality -- scam websites are still allowed to wantonly display their advertisement and piggy-back off of the legitimacy of websites. You can say caveat emptor for anyone who may follow the ads, but that's really unacceptable; it's getting the user into really awkward, and in some cases dangerous, places when they probably didn't even care enough to really check the content in the first place.

The idea that all content is worth the advertisement cost is flawed -- if paywalled content would stop users from visiting, then it's likely that the content wasn't really worth that much to them. Apathy and laziness are the only thing that takes most people to these sites.

Ha HA! (1)

pooh666 (624584) | about 5 months ago | (#47065991)

HaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA In Europe, even if there is some degree of lipservice going on, there is some real teeth in a LAW. DNT was a joke from the start with nothing to back it up.

Did anyone really expect anything else? (3, Insightful)

GlennC (96879) | about 5 months ago | (#47066003)

I certainly didn't figure this to work at all. I'm actually surprised that the "Do Not Call" list works as well as it does.

As for me, ABP, NoScript, BetterPrivacy and Ghostery seem to do the job well enough

Re:Did anyone really expect anything else? (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 5 months ago | (#47066159)

Another of those things where you need to be proactive take responsibility for your own safety on-line. The marketing companies have done nothing to help combat malicious advertisements and will quite happily farm as much information as they can whether people want them to or not, so fsck 'em. ABP, NoScript et. all, combined with hosting my own DNS zone for the domains of the larger ad/tracking firms and mapping all their hosts to 127.0.0.1 have ensured I haven't seen a single third party ad, malicious or otherwise, in years and I'm going to do whatever I have to do in order to keep it that way.

AdBlock & Ghostery = Inferior + 'Souled-Out' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066251)

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

I asked Wladimir Palant a question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066819)

By email if "Almost All Ads Blocked" does these things (after he emailed 1st stating "hosts are a shitty solution"):

---

1.) Block malware/malscripted sites (not just adbanners with bad code)
2.) Block out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware (especially "fastflux" types, the predominant design that uses host-domain names vs. IP addresses (far easier to 'kill' in the latter is why)).
3.) Block Bogus DNS servers malware makers use (via fastflux + rogue DNS servers).
4.) Block Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Block known PHISHERS.
6.) Block TRACKERS.
7.) Block SPAMMERS.
8.) Get you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking adbanners + hardcoding your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Add reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers - since most are NOT patched vs. the Kaminsky flaw).
10.) Add "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD derived IP stack & hosts 99.999% of the time).
13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org]
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them WITHOUT having to know regexp.

---

* Can you tell me WHY he refuses to reply?

(He knows that if he admits hosts are more versatile, superior, & efficient than AdBlock - he's done: ClarityRay's going to assure that anyhow)

APK

P.S.=> Palant also said "You're ignoring facts"? Please - His reasoning's flawed!

AdBlock or any browser addon doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts can in added speed, security, reliability, or anonymity vs. APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] )!

... apk

Re:Did anyone really expect anything else? (4, Informative)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 5 months ago | (#47066413)

"Do Not Call" is enforced by law, you can sue for violations. You can't sue over violations of "Do Not Track" and so it is useless.

DoNoEvil Bit (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 5 months ago | (#47066011)

Isn't this like that April Fools RFC?

What does the header say? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066049)

"Please, I am but a lamb. Don't eat me, wolves."?

Just like Do Not Call... (1)

erp_consultant (2614861) | about 5 months ago | (#47066075)

In principle it's supposed to stop telemarketers from bugging you. But in reality you still get calls because companies that you are currently doing business with are allowed to solicit you. Companies lobbied Congress for a loophole and got it.

As long as Do Not Track is voluntary it will be ineffective.

Do not need it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066077)

Firefox, NoScript, AdBlock Plus. And cookies are totally disabled, except for those 3-4 websites I have to login to. And when I also want to hide my IP, Tor is out there. I don't even remember what an "ad" or a "pop-up" are. Advertisers cannot track anything about me, they'd better track their few neurons instead.

If all users did the same, the internet as we know it would go bankrupt. And it would get back to its free and community-driven nature that used to have until the early '90s.

AdBlock = INFERIOR + 'Souled-Out' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066103)

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

I asked Wladimir Palant a question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066833)

By email if "Almost All Ads Blocked" does these things (after he emailed 1st stating "hosts are a shitty solution"):

---

1.) Block malware/malscripted sites (not just adbanners with bad code)
2.) Block out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware (especially "fastflux" types, the predominant design that uses host-domain names vs. IP addresses (far easier to 'kill' in the latter is why)).
3.) Block Bogus DNS servers malware makers use (via fastflux + rogue DNS servers).
4.) Block Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Block known PHISHERS.
6.) Block TRACKERS.
7.) Block SPAMMERS.
8.) Get you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking adbanners + hardcoding your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Add reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers - since most are NOT patched vs. the Kaminsky flaw).
10.) Add "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD derived IP stack & hosts 99.999% of the time).
13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org]
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them WITHOUT having to know regexp.

---

* Can you tell me WHY he refuses to reply?

(He knows that if he admits hosts are more versatile, superior, & efficient than AdBlock - he's done: ClarityRay's going to assure that anyhow)

APK

P.S.=> Palant also said "You're ignoring facts"? Please - His reasoning's flawed!

AdBlock or any browser addon doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts can in added speed, security, reliability, or anonymity vs. APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] )!

... apk

No shit Sherlock (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 5 months ago | (#47066133)

Send a hot woman to walk naked in front of a frat house holding up a "do not take pics" sign and see if that works. Same idea.

Fuck a doLl (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066143)

dim. If *BSD is PRACTICAL PURPOSES, GUYS ARE USUALLY 200 running NT States that there AN arduous all parties it's

Advertiser NEVER itnended to honor a DNT (2)

aepervius (535155) | about 5 months ago | (#47066147)

Honoring a DNT would mean a high risk that sooner or later the majority of the page served would ask to not track. And that would have meant to return to the old day of "dumb" TV like advertising where they do only lknow statistically who is watching the ad, but not idnvidually. This would mean billions of $ of market evaporating.

From the get go advertised never intended to honor DNT, they simply slowed down any discussion and finally simply pulled excuse out of thin air to not honor it.

And the result is : thanks ghostery, noflash, adblock, and referer check.

AdBlock & Ghostery = Inferior + 'Souled-Out' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066523)

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

I asked Wladimir Palant a question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066801)

By email if "Almost All Ads Blocked" does these things (after he emailed 1st stating "hosts are a shitty solution"):

---

1.) Block malware/malscripted sites (not just adbanners with bad code)
2.) Block out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware (especially "fastflux" types, the predominant design that uses host-domain names vs. IP addresses (far easier to 'kill' in the latter is why)).
3.) Block Bogus DNS servers malware makers use (via fastflux + rogue DNS servers).
4.) Block Botnet C&C servers.
5.) Block known PHISHERS.
6.) Block TRACKERS.
7.) Block SPAMMERS.
8.) Get you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking adbanners + hardcoding your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution).
9.) Add reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers - since most are NOT patched vs. the Kaminsky flaw).
10.) Add "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs).
11.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD derived IP stack & hosts 99.999% of the time).
13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org]
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them WITHOUT having to know regexp.

---

* Can you tell me WHY he refuses to reply?

(He knows that if he admits hosts are more versatile, superior, & efficient than AdBlock - he's done: ClarityRay's going to assure that anyhow)

APK

P.S.=> Palant also said "You're ignoring facts"? Please - His reasoning's flawed!

AdBlock or any browser addon doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts can in added speed, security, reliability, or anonymity vs. APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] )!

... apk

That's SIX advertising posts on this page alone. (1)

mmell (832646) | about 5 months ago | (#47067041)

APK obviously feels that spamposting (like cyberstalking) is an acceptable behavior.

(cue the ad hominem attacks by A/C a.k.a. APK)

Re:That's SIX advertising posts on this page alone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47067097)

So it's ok for Adblock, RequestPolicy, Ghostery to do so but not APK? He shot you down too http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org] just like he did to AdBlock's author Wladimir Palant, with facts he can't validly disprove or overcome http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

Force them: Use the DoNotTrackMe add-on (1)

Burz (138833) | about 5 months ago | (#47066173)

Happily, the author is not connected to the ad industry: https://abine.com/donottrackme... [abine.com]

Double-speak (1)

David_W (35680) | about 5 months ago | (#47066439)

The timing of this amuses me, given what I recently saw on Yahoo. They've updated their privacy policy to say they ignore DNT. But since marketing types have to spin everything, they bill it as:

Thank you Yahoo for caring about my experience! :P

Blast from the past (5, Funny)

mrvan (973822) | about 5 months ago | (#47066521)

Your post advocates a

(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting tracking. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Trackers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop trackers for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from trackers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Trackeres don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of tracking
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with trackers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of trackers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

Thanks Apache (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066635)

Thanks Apache for being pretentious assholes and hard coding your web-server to ignore the do not track flag when sent by I.E.

Mozilla killed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47066735)

They made it useless when they turned DNT on by default in Firefox.

It was designed as an opt-out, any respectable company would follow that selection with the expectation that FTC would enforce it.
Some paranoia evangelist working for Mozilla in the W3C workgroup sabotaged it because he feels that all tracking should be forbidden.
Now we don't have any solution anymore, even for willing companies that listen to their clients.

I told you so (1)

kbg (241421) | about 5 months ago | (#47066953)

I told you so 5 years ago, but of course no one listened to me.

Why listen to browser providers (1)

aggles (775392) | about 5 months ago | (#47067015)

DNT was dead the moment a vendor, and not the user, made the decision to set the flag on by default. Why should any content provider respect the wishes of a browser company, with regards to tracking?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?