undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCarpetsmoker6y ago0 comments

> lobby for a legally binding do-not-track header.

DNT is pretty dead, and IMHO was never a good idea in the first place. Opt-outing of invasive and unethical tracking is just weird. What about people who don't know about it? Or don't fully understand what it means?

It's almost like the Hitchhiker's Guide: "Well, you should have visited the planning department in the disused lavatory with a sign 'beware of the leopard".

I wrote some more about it over here: https://www.arp242.net/dnt.html

0 comments

mintocean6y ago

I always thought the point of DNT wasn’t technical, but to make it impossible to argue either (a) that users don’t really care (many opted in), or (b) that Google et al respect user’s wishes without regulation or technical barriers (they are aware of DNT and its specific meaning and they ignore it). In other words, political maneuvering towards getting the entire industry to accept implementing that technical solution.

stuartd6y ago

The ultimate irony of DNT was that trackers could use the header as browser fingerprinting data..

floatboth6y ago

Well, it only adds one bit of information, that is probably highly correlated with everything else being unique as well :)

fauigerzigerk6y ago

True, but is DNT the lesser evil compared to what we have now, which is only annoyance and effectively no control.

CarpetsmokerOP6y ago

Well, if you're going to lobby for a change to the law then you might as well lobby for a change that's actually a good one, instead of a half-baked one that barely works.

fauigerzigerk6y ago

I would say it depends on how good any alternative solution is and how realistic it is to pass.

Edit: Having read your blog post, I want to say that I'm not necessarily asking for the original definition of DNT to be reused. What I want is for the DNT header to have the same effect as if I had said no to all optional categories of cookies.

The status quo is that we are asked a "yes or manage" question where "manage" means something horribly complicated that no one does. If we redefine DNT to mean "no to everything optional" then it becomes a matter of local law to define what is and isn't optional. This allows for the sort of minimum level of consumer protection that you're asking for.

The law could also require that this DNT header is opt-out. A per-site overridable DT header if you will.

I'm not going to claim that I have thought this through properly. It's just something that I wish Mozilla did some work on.

theonemind6y ago

I just block traffic with the RFC3514 evil bit set at my firewall.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsCarpetsmoker6y ago0 comments

> lobby for a legally binding do-not-track header.

It's almost like the Hitchhiker's Guide: "Well, you should have visited the planning department in the disused lavatory with a sign 'beware of the leopard".

I wrote some more about it over here: https://www.arp242.net/dnt.html

0 comments

mintocean6y ago

stuartd6y ago

The ultimate irony of DNT was that trackers could use the header as browser fingerprinting data..

floatboth6y ago

Well, it only adds one bit of information, that is probably highly correlated with everything else being unique as well :)

fauigerzigerk6y ago

True, but is DNT the lesser evil compared to what we have now, which is only annoyance and effectively no control.

CarpetsmokerOP6y ago

Well, if you're going to lobby for a change to the law then you might as well lobby for a change that's actually a good one, instead of a half-baked one that barely works.

fauigerzigerk6y ago

I would say it depends on how good any alternative solution is and how realistic it is to pass.

The law could also require that this DNT header is opt-out. A per-site overridable DT header if you will.

I'm not going to claim that I have thought this through properly. It's just something that I wish Mozilla did some work on.

theonemind6y ago

I just block traffic with the RFC3514 evil bit set at my firewall.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse