Proposed 'Do Not Track' Specs Would Kill IE10's Default DNT

Status
Not open for further replies.

DRosencraft

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
743
0
19,010
6
Not an ideal situation, but I can live with that. Just set it to not track on first config and don't worry about it again. I prefer IE10's default action, but this isn't a horrible compromise. Better than what they apparently wanted (allowing tracking by default).
 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
915
1
18,990
1
Of course the ad industry does not like this, but this is just a recommendation that it be turned on with explicit consumer opt-in. I suspect that there are fewer people who would not want it turned on than there are that would want it turned on.

So, if M$ is serious about this, they will leave it on and give you the chance to turn it off on installation rather than the other way around. This still absolutely consistent with this wording -
"An ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user's explicit consent"
- assuming that this wording is how it reads in the spec, because to not track IS a tracking preference signal, too. :kaola:
 

juanc

Distinguished
Nov 18, 2009
96
0
18,630
0
WHY someone wastes time on this? Why should I tell a site "do not track" me. If I say so, how can I know they are really not doing it?
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
i have a question, does this tracking help pay for websites?

if it does, i dont like the idea of it being a default do not track.
giving websites money by doing nothing at all, and probably helping more than a few be free because of it, is an over all plus... at least as far as im concerned.
 

waethorn

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
300
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]victorious 3930k[/nom]Mozilla? I trusted you[/citation]

Seriously?! Mozilla has been in Google's back pocket the whole time. Google funds Mozilla, and then "borrows" ideas to put into Webkit. If this is any surprise to you, then you need to wake up.

All that Microsoft needs to do is add a first-run prompt to ask people if they want it enabled, and show a big "RECOMMENDED" beside the Do Not Track option, just like they do for automatic updates.
 

DRosencraft

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2011
743
0
19,010
6
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]i have a question, does this tracking help pay for websites?if it does, i dont like the idea of it being a default do not track.giving websites money by doing nothing at all, and probably helping more than a few be free because of it, is an over all plus... at least as far as im concerned.[/citation]

Tracking does not directly help pay for anything. It allows advertisers to track the location of your internet connected device (phone, tablet, PC) and use stuff like your location (and I believe websites you visit) to generate ads tailored towards where you are and what you're doing. So, instead of an ad for a generic car company, you'll get an ad for one in your neighborhood, probably with their phone number and web address. Or in a case I've seen, you can be on website and a Newegg banner add will scroll through items you've recently looked at on Newegg. With DNT that ad would essentially be a more generic Newegg ad about their daily deals or something like that. So no, it doesn't directly bring in any money for the website you're actually on, but from the advertiser's perspective it increases the likelihood that you will click on that ad or head to their site and buy something.
 

Shin-san

Distinguished
Nov 11, 2006
618
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]i have a question, does this tracking help pay for websites?if it does, i dont like the idea of it being a default do not track.giving websites money by doing nothing at all, and probably helping more than a few be free because of it, is an over all plus... at least as far as im concerned.[/citation]It does, but it gets creepy.
 

thecolorblue

Honorable
Jun 5, 2012
548
0
10,980
0
tracking is all about totally raping your private online activity so various corporations and god knows who else can make more money the expense of your privacy... cookies that track litterally every URL that you visit and track you over time.

anyone willing to surrendur their privacy and grand advertising companies the right to database their entire
life on the net is a fool and deserves no privacy whatsoever
 

falchard

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
2,360
0
19,790
4
Why would Microsoft care what a bunch of ivy leaguers not related to Microsoft and ad agencies agreed to at the White house? Last time I checked, Microsoft does not make ad revenue. What are they going to do? Sue Microsoft and lose ad tracking in the courts due to unconsitutionality of violating user privacy?
 
All of you have to understand that Do Not Track requires the advertisers' consent to actually work: if it were enabled by default, meaning that no one would switch it back off, advertising companies would simply disregard it altogether and track you anyway. It is, actually, the corner stone between the advertising companies and the browser alliance. The new proposal makes it very clear.

As such, IE10 turning DNT on by default was effectively an attempt at killing DNT's effectiveness. Moreover, had it kept working (which is doubtful, but let's consider it anyway), it would have meant your browser would be barring you from content, without your explicit consent - this alone would be reason enough for Mozilla to ask for it being switched off.

Another reason is that most websites on the Internet work thanks to advertising funds - nowadays, the least annoying advertising is done thanks to user tracking; disabling tracking means that you get irrelevant adverts - welcome to AOL.

Killing off advertising would essentially mean that there would be no more subscription-less websites: only websites that you'd need to pay to get their content, or private websites. That would mean the end of self-expression on the Internet as we know it nowadays, and a jump backward in time of more than 15 years.

At best we'd get Geocities back.
 

pepe2907

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2010
643
0
19,010
16
First run prompt is by far not enough.
Usually you just update your browser, do not install a new one unless you install your OS from scratch. Most new browsers will just upgrade the old ones.
And the thing should be actually associated with the user profile, not the browser itself /the software product/ which is not cleared in this agreement.
 

jkflipflop98

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2006
1,576
71
19,870
3
My favorite part is how the people that actually use the internet have no say in any of this. It's two huge money-grubbing bodies fighting over the right to fleece the sheep.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
3,078
106
20,970
2
[citation][nom]mitch074[/nom]All of you have to understand that Do Not Track requires the advertisers' consent to actually work: if it were enabled by default, meaning that no one would switch it back off, advertising companies would simply disregard it altogether and track you anyway. It is, actually, the corner stone between the advertising companies and the browser alliance. The new proposal makes it very clear.As such, IE10 turning DNT on by default was effectively an attempt at killing DNT's effectiveness. Moreover, had it kept working (which is doubtful, but let's consider it anyway), it would have meant your browser would be barring you from content, without your explicit consent - this alone would be reason enough for Mozilla to ask for it being switched off.Another reason is that most websites on the Internet work thanks to advertising funds - nowadays, the least annoying advertising is done thanks to user tracking; disabling tracking means that you get irrelevant adverts - welcome to AOL.Killing off advertising would essentially mean that there would be no more subscription-less websites: only websites that you'd need to pay to get their content, or private websites. That would mean the end of self-expression on the Internet as we know it nowadays, and a jump backward in time of more than 15 years.At best we'd get Geocities back.[/citation]
Tracking != Advertising. Tracking is just a part of online advertising. Radio, Print, and TV advertising don't know your preferences, where you've been, what products you've looked at, content of your gmail, etc. Advertising will survive without tracking, there are plenty of other ways to determine what ads to target where.

People using adblockers do much more damage to a site's ad revenue. Really annoying ads and popups that make people resort to adblockers do more damage too. DNT enabled by default isn't as big of an issue as the DAA is making it out to be.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]DRosencraft[/nom]Tracking does not directly help pay for anything. It allows advertisers to track the location of your internet connected device (phone, tablet, PC) and use stuff like your location (and I believe websites you visit) to generate ads tailored towards where you are and what you're doing. So, instead of an ad for a generic car company, you'll get an ad for one in your neighborhood, probably with their phone number and web address. Or in a case I've seen, you can be on website and a Newegg banner add will scroll through items you've recently looked at on Newegg. With DNT that ad would essentially be a more generic Newegg ad about their daily deals or something like that. So no, it doesn't directly bring in any money for the website you're actually on, but from the advertiser's perspective it increases the likelihood that you will click on that ad or head to their site and buy something.[/citation]

but here is a counter point, people don't have any respect for internet advertising. to the point that they barely pay half of what a tv ad gets, and i can tell you i pay less attention to those than online ones, a targeted ad pays out more than a generic shotgun one.

my problem is this blanket "tracking is evil" stance everyone but me seems to have, but more to the point, its like everyone is afraid that someone may know they use google and email... or god forbid, looked up some porn and a videogame.

i just cant wrap my head around what what is basically anonymous information is so hated.
 

back_by_demand

Splendid
BANNED
Jul 16, 2009
4,821
0
22,780
0
[citation][nom]ddpruitt[/nom]You really think a DNT option will make a difference?Look at what Google was doing on the IPhone[/citation]
Look at what Google did with Street View
...
All your data are belong to Google
 
G

Guest

Guest
I fail to understand why we should be against this kind of tracking of anonymous information over the web for the purpose of advertisement. Can someone enlighten me?

Or a simpler question, why would you want to turn on DNT, by default, prompt or manually. What the harm if this information is tracked?
 

thecolorblue

Honorable
Jun 5, 2012
548
0
10,980
0
I fail to understand why we should be against this kind of tracking of anonymous information over the web for the purpose of advertisement. Can someone enlighten me?

Or a simpler question, why would you want to turn on DNT, by default, prompt or manually. What the harm if this information is tracked?
It seems that you fail to understand something yes... namely that it is NOT anonymous.
2nd... read 1984
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS