Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wins Congressional Backing For Do-Not-Track Default In IE10
An anonymous reader writes "Thought Do Not Track was strictly a geeks' issue? Think again. After Microsoft was slapped down for enabling DNT by default in Internet Explorer 10, the co-chairs of the US's Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus have sent a strongly-worded letter to the W3C urging it to reconsider. As webdev360.com points out, it's an interesting (unprecedented?) example of Congress interacting with the standards body: 'Whether members of the [working group] will take kindly to the Representatives' interference remains to be seen. Ed Markey's legislative director, Joseph Wender, has brought the letter to the attention of the group's mailing list, but, as of the time of writing, he hasn't received any replies.'"
If they don't change their ways, they may get another strongly worded letter about it!
I am officially gone from
Think this ties in well with another story from a bit earlier: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/06/20/0421210/cnet-idc-find-rapid-increase-in-behavioral-data-tracking
-1 troll is not supposed to be used simply because you don't agree
Maybe MS can disclose just how much tracking they do everytime a Windows installation phones home for Windows Update.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
why don't they make it into a law that you have to have a "TRACK ME PLEASE" cookie for it to be legal to track your flow through multiple domains..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
While I applaud MS for their privacy efforts, I am cynical, and I largely see this as a marketing move on their behalf. They've seen how Google has copped some flak over privacy concerns, and it's obvious they want to position themselves as the privacy-respecting alternative. But I have no doubt that if Bing and Microsoft's cloud services become as popular as Google's, they will mine every last bit of data they can get their hands on.
They're all as bad as each other, says I.
Why the fuck would the W3C care about this feature in a browser?
Does anyone have any idea why the W3C opposed this? It seems like a no-brainer.
Never thought I would stand with MS over the W3C, but there you have it.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Unless they're planning on adding the force of law to the DNT bit, all this will do is make advertisers ignore it (and, they could argue, rightfully so since they couldn't be certain that people turned it on of their own volition).
Microsoft could pop up a dialog asking, but even then, who exactly is going to click "yes, track me"? Perhaps they should get together with some people from the advertising industry to come up with some fair copy that explains the benefits (targeted ads mean that you receive ads that will more likely interest you, after all) and drawbacks of cross-domain tracking, to ensure a semi-educated choice on the part of users.
If they just turn it on and don't ask about it though, expect it to be yet another technology extinguished by poor Microsoft engineering decisions. (I was kinda hoping we were past that, guys.)
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Chrome just overtook IE in marketshare and Google uses Chrome to track user's browsing habits for the purpose of targeted advertising. Making the Do-Not-Track policy the default for web browsers would hurt Google a lot more than it would hurt Microsoft, not to mention drastically reduce Google's incentive to continue pumping money into Chrome's development. While I like the idea of not being tracked by default, I hope it doesn't cost me future development of my favorite browser.
Now they are testing the W3C. Do not track is a popular and easily understandable topic so they can make people believe that they know better than an independent standards organisation.
Seriously, I don't give two squirts from a rat's ass about whether or not browser-X enables DNT by default. I can turn it on myself just fine.
If Markey and Barton want to actually do something, how about some legislation requiring companies to honor the DNT flag?
Oh, right - That would actually risk backlash from their corporate owners. Instead, they get to look like the good guys right before heading off to a night of hookers and blow sponsored by DoubleClick.
The system hasn't broken - The system simply never had any intention of working for us. For the next run, we need to do away with both "incorporation" and any private funding of elections.
While there were some finer points to the case, how does all that fit in with the FTC investigating Google's 'circumventing' of Safari's 'privacy' options?
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/05/04/2156218/google-facing-ftc-fine-over-safari-privacy-breach
I have "do not track" checked on all my browsers but Flash still spies on me and shows me ads for whatever I bought two weeks ago (which isn't even effective marketing its like why show me an ad of the shoes i ordered last week) but seriously to make this do not track crap worth a piss flash has got go.
....don't use IE10 if you don't want to be tracked.
All this nonsense is going on in Congress, while Ron Paul is introducing yet another bill to enforce the Constitution, and prevent the government from going into war without a declaration of war with Syria.
You can't handle the truth.
Is this tracking option used only for Google Analytics (client side tracking with JS), or is it also for server-side tracking like AWStats?
If it is, how are we suppose to have stats about pageviews and traffic on our sites?
do any of these groups have over my fucking software defaults. Nuke the USA.
then the spec is worse than useless. I admit I did not read it. My current understanding is this is just a stupid cookie.
I have a better proposal. Why not make it easier for users to block "third-party" cookies, i.e. cookies sent from domains different from the current page domain. *That* would block advertisers from tracking you. Also, a javascript hook triggering a nice UI for OpenId sites to ask users if they want to whitelist them for login purposes.
Check out my cross-platform apps
... how much Congress is in the pockets of US corporations.
Want to bet that this opt-out doesn't apply to any of the apps Microsoft bundles with Windows RT / 8?
I may be about to open up a shit storm upon myself but this needs to be said. I'll hold my hands up and say I am an internet marketer (aka SEO & the rest to those who have heard of it) and I know the majority of people hate advertisements especially here on my much loved /. but it's kind of needed unless folk would like a pay wall on every website?
In regards to tracking this is useful to create more relevant ads (usually), it's not perfect I'd admit but unless you want to let us marketeers to read your thoughts that's the only way it'd be truly relevant. However if you think marketing is annoying at the moment imagine what it'd be like if we couldn't track anyone to supply the current type of advertisement. We'd have to resort to TV style adverts or pay walls on every website. So tell me do you prefer the current adverts on Slashdot or would you prefer a 3 minute video every time you came here?
If marketeers can't target specific people in specific(ish) ways we'd have to resort to the broader style of marketing and I would hate the web if it became like that.
The latest draft of the standard states "[a]n ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user's explicit consent." Having it set by default, without any input from the user, violates that. That seems about as simple as you can get. The real question should be whether or not that wording belongs in the standard.
As other commenters have said, I feel that enabling it by default would have a dramatic impact on advertisers. I feel that they'd be more willing to accept a few individuals explicitly turning it off, rather than every clueless user automatically having it turned off by default. It's simply compromising with the advertisers - if we ask nicely, they're more likely to respect our wishes. If we just say everyone everywhere doesn't want this, they're more likely to have a problem with that and simply ignore DNT settings altogether.
And just like a few people have mentioned, if the IE10 first-run wizard asked whether or not you wanted to enable it, it would no longer violate the standard and W3C should have nothing to say about it. Again, demonizing tracking in this dialog could result in a huge hit to advertisers, which again would make them less likely to honor the DNT setting altogether. As a compromise with advertisers, it would probably be best to explain that tracking may give you more relevant ads and such, while enabling DNT would give you more privacy. Simply asking, "Do you want to be tracked?" with no other details probably isn't the best way to handle it.
Until there are laws requiring companies to honor DNT, pissing off the advertisers over it will simply result in them not honoring it at all.
It doesn't apply to any tracking Microsoft does because even though they've gone so far as the standard-breaking client-side DNT-by-default in IE10, they don't support DNT at all server-side on the sites they operate that track user data.
On the street, everyone says they want fair government. In the voting booth, everyone says they don't care.
On the street, everyone says they don't want to be tracked. In the preferences window, everyone says they don't care.
When you say most people do not want to be tracked, I just don't know whether or not to believe you. You understand my confusion, don't you?
My fellow Americans, you have public and informal passion, yet you have private and formal apathy. Weird. I thought we were all trying to act cool and unconcerned on the outside while secretly harboring inner terror and desperation. WTF. Am I doing everything backwards, or are you?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
This right extends even to using your likeness. So if someone chooses not to have their information used to serve up better ads then so-be-it. If someone says in order to interact with this website we must be able to track you then you need to give people the option of enabling it. By default when I get a letter in the mail saying you've just been given a subscription to abc magazine, you may cancel at anytime, but we will bill you otherwise. This is very much the same thing where not having it on by default is the same as saying that we will use your information until you tell us to stop. By having DNT ignored by companies if they choose to do so should not be allowed. This is like the do not call list, or emailing list, etc. I'll tell you if and when I want better service by providing more information...until then back off!
They can prove to their customers how effective their campaigns are, by convincing people to turn DNT off. If they ignore DNT as soon as it puts a dent in their statistics they fail to show they are experts at influencing people.
I would bet that even if it was later set to ON (from default OFF) some advertisers would say
But we recorded you on 09/15/2012 at 15:24.35 as opting IN to our program and our policy is to not recheck past the first time.
so whenever a browser dumps and has to be reloaded (and the settings reset) there is a window that could be used.
Plus what happens if DNT is set to ON does the previous data need to be erased??
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Eben Moglen put it best: http://archive.org/details/EbenMoglensDo-not-trackLegislationTestimonyResponses
microsoft loves to track its users and compile lots of user/usage data... and not just browser users.. DNT on by default makes them look like the good guys.. when we know they aren't.
similarly...
google makes more than some countries' GDP using user tracking data to maximize their profits. adding DNT to chrome makes them look like the good guys.. when we know they aren't.
smoke and mirrors.
___
DNT relies on compliance by the web site and server operators -- something that cannot be forced, legislated, or even audited...
DNT is WORTHLESS. a nice idea in concept, but is impossible to implement.
...advertisers will ignore it because it becomes fairly meaningless, and not ignoring it would lose them potential eyeballs who don't care about being tracked. So the feature just becomes worthless.
So, why has the advertising lobby come out so strongly and virulently against DNT by default if it really is so inconsequential???
This is just a suggestion, but if you don't comply we'll start a congressional committee and corresponding legislation. After all nothing is off-limit to political power. Don't mind the invisible gun in our backpocket.