Slashdot Mirror
Apple Adding "Do-Not-Track" To Safari
bonch writes "The latest developer preview of OS X Lion includes a 'do not track' privacy feature in Safari, the latest browser to do so following Mozilla Firefox and Microsoft Internet Explorer. The feature complies with a privacy system backed by the FTC that allows users to declare that they do not wish to be tracked by online advertisers. This leaves Google Chrome as the last prominent browser not to support the feature. As an online advertiser themselves, Google states that they 'will continue to be involved closely' with industry discussions about compliance with the do-not-track system."
Microsoft added a 'Do Not Crack' plea button to Internet Explorer ... hackers were unavailable for comments on whether this new button will convince them of leaving the browser alone
Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
Do any of these "Do Not Track" buttons in browsers actually do anything useful, like disable third-party cookies, or does it just amount to an altogether useless "pretty please!" plea to the oh-so-ethical tracking/advertising industry? If the latter, then aren't these fancy "Do Not Track" buttons actually WORSE than nothing since they'll give ignorant users a completely phoney sense of security.
Y'know, while it pleases me to see all the major browsers implementing this, and even having some shred of FTC support, it still doesn't amount to a kernel of corn in a mountain of turd for one simple reason...
Namely, the real abusers of our privacy don't give a damn about what we want. And don't think that only includes the likes of Ralsky - Every single company that thinks they can get away with harvesting your data by using a "third party affiliate" or offshore host, will do whatever they can get away with.
We have one, and only one, means of maintaining our privacy online - Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. Filter your response headers, never use your real name, address, phone number, or even your real dog's name as the answer to a site's security questions.
so i have ie, firefox, chrome, safari, and opera always installed on every one of my machines (work/ mobile/ home)
sometimes i'll randomly launch browsers just to get a feel for the user experience ("___ is not your default browser, would like to make..." ad infinitum). i'm sure if slashdot data mined the HTTP_USER_AGENT server variable attached to user circletimessquare they'd see an odd 5 piece pie chart
but after reading this post, i foresee the chrome pie piece experiencing a significant decrease in size
c'mon google, what the fuck
and this is why competition works. if only ie dominated, as in years past, there's be little or no pressure to introduce this feature. honest fair competition (in a well-regulated marketplace) means the consumer wins
one final aside: i love opera. that's one scrappy browser. they always seem to have the most exotic features that leave your mind excited rather than eye-rolling (like bit torrent support baked in). supporting opera, unfortunately, is an afterthought in most browser development projects i've been attached to, and in the past, it suffered from the same hijinks as ie6/7 which left you angry at it and resentful (not so much anymore). but i've always tried to support opera. and its not just sentimental love for the underdog, opera is a really good browser, you should try it (no i'm not affiliated with them in any way). i believe its hot in nordic countries (which makes sense, since its from there) and eastern europe
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Since Google Analytics seems to be on about every website in the known world these days, it hardly surprises me that Google would be reluctant to support this. Wouldn't this feature essentially cripple it?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Incognito mode ('porn mode' to its friends) attacks an entirely different class of privacy problem.
The interpersonal privacy compromise problem is a legitimate one. Potentially embarrassing or worse. Incognito mode does a reasonably effective job of stopping that one(I haven't read up on whether or not the latest forensics packages can do anything against it; but the contents of a closed incognito session are safe enough from your roommate/spouse/kids/nosy sibling/etc.)
Against remote 3rd parties, though, incognito mode is highly limited. It does flush cookies when the session is terminated, which is better than nothing; but with most broadband IPs being close to static, it often isn't rocket surgery to correlate and reconstruct user activity even if you lose some cookies(indeed, being able to run an incognito session and a standard session at the same time and on the same host probably makes that easier, unlike the older, cruder methods where the user manually wiped all their sessions after a period of time).
They are really two entirely different classes of threat.
Actually, Chrome supports "Don't be (too) evil": It uses a "super cookie" to persist opt-out cookies. That allows subtle tracking (since the user has to actively opt out of sites, implying that he visited them) without actually tracking you, as you suggested.
Safari, Mozilla, and IE9 support a blanket "do not track me" header, that gives away no information about your browsing, other than the fact that you do not want to be tracked.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
Fine, but don't come crying when your partner dumps you for someone who did. Well actually do come crying, there's a deluxe model you see...
To summarise:
"Privacy Mode" means "Do not store information about what I've been doing ON THIS COMPUTER"
"Do not Track" means "Dear Advertisers, Do not store information about what I've been doing ON YOUR SERVERS"
Large difference.