Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo To Implement Do Not Track
Trailrunner7 writes "Yahoo has decided that it's now time to start implementing a Do Not Track system across its various Web properties. The company is one of the last large Web content providers to officially commit to using a DNT technology, and Yahoo said that it plans to have the system implemented by early summer. Yahoo officials said that their Do Not Track implementation has been in development since 2011 and that it will be a simple way for consumers to turn on the DNT option."
People still use Yahoo? Did I just pass through a wormhole to 2003?
...or serious news.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
and that it will be a simple way for consumers to turn on the DNT option.
Why dont they simply say they will honor the DNT browser preference ? Can we expect corporate weaseling when they announce it and it turns out to be some cookie based, yahoo-specific, joke of a solution ?
Is it just me or this year's April's Fool is sucking hard here on Slashdot?
Come on, don't fail me this time Slashdot!
"Our lawyers have assured us that we can legally redefine 'do not track' to not really offer you any protection at all."
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
This is from three days ago on cnet.
Does not appear to be an AF joke.
"Yahoo officials said that their Do Not Track implementation has been in development since 2011 and that it will be a simple way for consumers to turn on the DNT option."
Link
Tracking who is not tracked while not tracking them.
Hmm.
Oh, right, it's that stupid day when I should stay away from Slashdot, whoops.
Anything is possible given time and money.
My view is that whatever Do Not Track tools Google has/used to have, either now or very soon they will be eclipsed by the "we will track you more" anti-privacy policy.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
My view is that whatever Do Not Track tools Google has/used to have, either now or very soon they will be eclipsed by the "we will track you more" anti-privacy policy.
Upon what do you base that view? What I see of Google's privacy policy and behavior around privacy -- both what I see publicly and what I see internally (I work for Google) -- leads me to a very different conclusion.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Upon what do you base that view? What I see of Google's privacy policy and behavior around privacy -- both what I see publicly and what I see internally (I work for Google) -- leads me to a very different conclusion.
you make a very big assumption that anyone trusts you. If it can be done, it will be done.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Upon what do you base that view? What I see of Google's privacy policy and behavior around privacy -- both what I see publicly and what I see internally (I work for Google) -- leads me to a very different conclusion.
you make a very big assumption that anyone trusts you. If it can be done, it will be done.
I don't think I'm making any assumptions, just drawing conclusions based on observations. I guess my one assumption is that one can draw conclusions and apply them to the future based on observations of the past. But if we throw out that assumption, well, then we can't ever know anything.
Also, your statement that "if it can be done it will be done" is obviously false. It's essentially the most severe possible extension of the slippery slope fallacy. I'm not saying that we can discount the possibility that people or organizations may change their behavior in the future, and potentially for the worse, nor that we should ignore the possible implications of what changes in behavior may allow, based on the data we provide today, but assuming the worst possible outcome in all cases is just as misleading as wearing rose-colored glasses.
Bottom line, if you have reasons for assuming Google will make a major turnaround in its privacy policies in the future, spit them out. If it's just generalized fearfulness of all large organization, then say so.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Also, your statement that "if it can be done it will be done" is obviously false. It's essentially the most severe possible extension of the slippery slope fallacy.
Good heavens, not even absolutely false. Better yet, the question would be, if it can be done - why would it not be done?
I have no fear of large corporations. But not trusting them is not fear. Just common sense. There are shareholders that need served, and they are serving them, not me. There's a long litany of corporations who have done some shady and illegal things. And there really isn't much punishment when they get caught. All in all, it's pretty profitable.
I don't lose any sleep over it, because corporations are made up of people, and I know people. It's just how things work.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Also, your statement that "if it can be done it will be done" is obviously false. It's essentially the most severe possible extension of the slippery slope fallacy.
Good heavens, not even absolutely false. Better yet, the question would be, if it can be done - why would it not be done?
Ah, now that's a more reasonable statement/question. Why indeed would it not be done? If doing it would destroy their business, you can be pretty certain it will not be done. If it would violate the moral sensibilities of the people in charge -- assuming they have any -- you can also have some assurance it will not be done.
I have no fear of large corporations. But not trusting them is not fear. Just common sense. There are shareholders that need served, and they are serving them, not me.
But in the case of Google, the leaders of the company have very little motivation to serve the shareholders. Because of the voting stock structure, Larry Page and Sergey Brin outvote the rest of the shareholders combined. And they really have no need to worry much about share price, either; the stock could drop by 90% and they'd both still be so wealthy that they could never spend their money.
There's a long litany of corporations who have done some shady and illegal things. And there really isn't much punishment when they get caught. All in all, it's pretty profitable.
Government punishment is pretty ineffective, true. What absolutely matters is customers. If Google's users begin to avoid its products, then advertisers will cease giving Google huge piles of money. Much of Google's profitability rests directly on the trust of the user base. Even if the leadership weren't composed of engineers whose goals tend to be oriented around doing great things for the world (yeah, a bit overblown on the rhetoric, but probably not surprising for people who rocketed from unknown Ph.D. students to an essential part of the world's information systems in a handful of years), and even if Google weren't an engineer-driven, bottom-up decision-making organization, cold-eyed, rational analysis would lead Google to avoid doing anything too offensive.
I don't lose any sleep over it, because corporations are made up of people, and I know people. It's just how things work.
Do you know geeks? Because that's what Google is, a company run by geeks for geeks. Personally, being a geek and knowing how geeks think about privacy, that gives me a great deal of confidence in Google's decisions around privacy.
Perhaps a decade or two down the road, Larry and Sergey will have sold off most of their stock to fund their respective foundations, and Google will be in more traditional hands and run more like a traditional company. Until then, I'm not worried.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.