Slashdot Mirror
Advertisers Never Intended To Honor DNT
First time accepted submitter oldlurker writes "After much discussion where many hoped a voluntary Do Not Track standard was agreed with advertisers, it turns out the advertisers already had a very different interpretation than most of us on how to practice it: 'Two big associations, the Interactive Advertising Bureau and the Digital Advertising Alliance, represent 90% of advertisers. Downey says those big groups have devised their own interpretation of Do Not Track. When the servers controlled by those big companies encounter a DNT=1 header, says Downey, "They have said they will stop serving targeted ads but will still collect and store and monetize data."'"
Isn't that missing the entire point? Or is the do-not-track specification one of those Orwellian-titled things whereby the net effect is exactly the opposite of the name?
...they will still track.
What ads? I use noscript and adblock.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Wasn't the whole point of this to encourage advertisers to not track and if they do you have a leg to stand on in a court because you specifically made it clear you did not want to be tracked?
"Please don't eat me, brother Wolf!" cried the Rabbit. "Aw, all right." said the Wolf, rolling his eyes. "I'll just trade you to brother Fox for some hens. Is that ok with you?"
It's do not track not cover up track. I think these fellas need a course in remedial grammar.
There are times I do want, say, Google to keep my data, and I don't care if they share it -- like if I search for Minecraft stuffs, I want MC stuff to appear on my search. Or if I search a topic and I'd rather be swayed towards more reliable sources that I would frequent rather than like, "HOMEOPATHY MAGIC QUANTUM JUICE PANACEA MAKE MONEY FROM HOME."
For everthing else, there's Duck Duck Go
I have my browsers not respect their wishes on page composition and ad presentation, so I don't really expect them to respect my do-not-track header either. Their domains would first have to make it past my DNS blackhole anyway.
They keep showing me adds for 127.0.0.1, but I can't seem to find where to by this great product. Anyone has any idea?
Does this really surprise anyone? You mess with a company's ability to make money and of course they're going to bend (or flat out ignore) any rules, whether they're opt-in or not. These companies serve ads, it's what they do. If you think you can take that away and they won't try to profit another way, then you may not know why businesses actually exist, no matter how slimy they are.
and that is why i use and will continue to use adblock. the advertisers have given me no reason to trust them.
Pretty much everyone guessed they would try to use backward logic, loophole or some other twisted method to do what they actually want, monetinize YOU.
I think the point of DNT was to try and create a legal recourse for regular people. That way we can point the finger and say they are breaking standards and damaging privacy.
Since there actually are ways to block these groups, the tech savy should use those instead. Tunnel you traffik Use adblock, etc.
Water is wet.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
From the moment I saw the Do not Track idea come up, I was telling people that advertisers will not car and not honor it. the ONLY way you can set your own do not track is by using adblockers and other tools to strip out their crud. IF they wont honor your do not track, you no longer have to honor seeing their ad's. The only thing they can track by now is your IP address and the browser string if you install all the privacy plugins for firefox or Chrome. it strips their bugs, cookies, etc... and I am waiting for someone to start randomizing the browser string to further make their tracking harder.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
That's ridiculous! Why should somebody throw away data just because they are flagged DNT?
>"Advertisers Never Intended To Honor DNT"
Um.... Duh???
Did anyone really expect anything else?
It's because these guys, like the political 'elite', have a different dictionary they use. They expect it to apply only to them, but not you. It's full of double talk, loose and opposite interpretations all designed to give them what they want. But when it comes to you, they will use the dictionary and grammar you were raised with to ensure you can't get what you want. They do the same thing in court. Hell, that's why they invented legalese, too.
Advertisers are ignoring what the user wants and using your data any way they see fit just because they can?
Know what else they're tracking and selling to other advertisers? Your do-not-track setting.
Most interesting and profitable to track because they don't want to be tracked.
It's like putting a kid in front of a big red button and saying "DON'T TOUCH THAT BIG RED BUTTON". Seriously, did anyone expect anything less?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The scum (advertisers, government agencies, et. al.) will continue to use it. Three cheers for ghostery.com.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
That's okay. I never had the intention of turning off AdBlock or NoScript.
That got all upset because Microsoft wanted to put DNT in IE10?
Where is he now?
I want to hear his comments about this.
Gentlemen, start your ad blockers.
I'm very carefull with those as I'd like to keep my free ad-financed sites, but this is a short-cut to my blacklist.
As is content-obscuring ads, any kind of noise and excessive blinking.
bickerdyke
'Cause I'm D.N.T., I'm dynamite
(D.N.T.) and I'll win the fight
(D.N.T.) I'm a power load
(D.N.T.) watch me explode
I'm dirty, mean and mighty unclean
I'm a wanted man
Public enemy number one
Understand
So lock up your daughter
Lock up your wife
Lock up your back door
And run for your life
The man is back in town
So don't you mess me 'round
rewriting history since 2109
It's time to build adblocking into browsers which only blocks ads from sources which do not obey DNT. If the advertisers don't respect the wishes of the users to not track, the browser should not respect the wishes of the advertisers to display adds.
It's very difficult to communicate with someone when their livelihood is dependent on not understanding.
Water is wet, grass is green and space is big.
Honestly, you have to be quite naive and downright stupid to expect anything else.
If you provide your attacker (advertisers), who have a vested interest in ignoring the flag, with the means to ignore the flag, it's not going to work.
If Alice asks Charlie, a known snooper, to deliver a message to Bob and she expects Charlie not to take a peek, it's going to take more than writing "don't look, Charlie, tee hee hee!" at the top of the message.
This was dumb idea from the very beginning and destined to explode on the launch pad. Besides, browsers already have an in-built functionality to reject third-party cookies, which pretty much takes care of the problem. Yes, there are some clever and covert ways of doing it without cookies (hidden iframes, forms and whatnot), but there's no reason browsers can't reject those on a whitelist basis (some online software will use these hidden elements legitimately).
So they think "do not track" means "do not serve targeted ads"? If they're the same thing, then why are the two concepts expressed differently?
The point of DNT was to address the most serious privacy concerns about advertising without simply blocking ads (because people have this idea that advertising is paying for the web; I have my doubts). Supposedly advertisers would be compelled to comply, because otherwise people will see that the advertisers do not respect their wishes and then they will install things like ABP.
Now we see that advertisers are not respecting DNT, so now we should get back to making sure everyone installs ABP.
Palm trees and 8
being able to browse the internet is a form of free speech.
I propose that our PAC lobby congress for its proper free speech rights.
blocking ads is a form of free speech.
please donate to Browsers United so we can get our voices heard.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Blocking ads is censorship and anti-capitalistic
rewriting history since 2109
DNT was never going to work in any practical way. Advertisers weren't going to change because of a voluntary system. So were the proponents naive idealists or playing politics? DNT has made an issue out of data tracking (people++) but also given industry and politicians years of cover (theman++) while it's debated.
I can't help but see this as a near total victory for industry: they haven't actually changed at all. The core issue hasn't been debated in any technical sense (what counts as tracking? how long can data be kept?...) There's little to no discussion about civil rights and privacy. No discussion about security or the legal status of the data (what happens when lawyers want tracking data for a divorce case?).
DNT is an April Fools joke (evil bit) transformed into a mock-policy discussion.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
... why kindly asking people to be nice to other people's (say, yours) isn't going to work. There's the wilful misinterpreting by the people whose cooperation this hinges on, but that's really but a sideshow. We already knew marketeers are invertebrate pathological compulsive liars so in that respect this cannot be news. The lesson is this: The only way to safeguard data is to not hand it out in the first place.
It should've been obvious from the start, but apparently there are quite a lot hopelessly naïve people Out There.
Still, as an excercise in mass-self deluding and wishful thinking this may be World Record-worthy.
I guess it's time for browsers to ship with adblock.
There were a bunch of submissions about DNT on /. in the past, and I noticed that anyone pointing out that DNT was idiotic and would be ignored, and the real solution was to stop giving them the data in the first place, was modded down to -1. People didn't want to believe it, I guess. Even if you make it illegal to ignore DNT, that just means the tracking will move offshore, and you will STILL be tracked. The only way around it is to stop giving them data. Stop running their tracking javascripts, stop loading things from their ad servers, stop loading the Facebook "like" button that's plastered all around these days.
Now, here we are. DNT does not, in fact work.
Consider the alternative. Would you rather pay for the 10 or so sites that you visit on a daily basis? That's been tried and tried and tried and has always failed so far. Maybe someday in the future the magic combination of micro transactions and transparency will be stumbled upon, but it hasn't happened yet. That, and the advertising forces still believe that advertising works. A lot of people don't care about being advertised to, and in some cases they actually prefer it. So for significantly large values of stupidity or apathy, the advertising companies aren't wrong.
The technically able and the ones who care about being subjected to unhealthy amounts of lowest common denominator dreck have tools they use (Firefox, adblock plus, noscript, ghostery, etc.) to avoid the worst of it. Fortunately for them, their mostly free and unfettered access is payed for mainly by those who don't and the small percentage of overlap between the 2 sets.
Being a geek is fun and in this case healthier.
We need to spend our time educating and helping "mainstream" users install appropriate plugins / settings to block these clowns outright. Adblock or Adblock Plus, Ghostery, EasyPrivacy Tracking Protection List installed on IE, you name it. There needs to be a consumer response to bad behavior on their part, and not just from technically oriented users. Spread the word and do as much damage to this abusive industry as possible. Don't be swayed by appeals from website operators. We need to force there to be a change in this industry. The source site you're visiting needs to be the source of the advertisements, proxyed from the advertisers. That way they take responsibility for the tracking behaviors advertisers use on their site, and that way good sites can be whitelisted while bad sites are blocked and avoided. The current scenario of "plausible deniability" for website operators to just rent out their customer to advertisers in exchange for content, without taking any real responsibility for the advertiser's behavior won't survive if the advertisers and website operators are put under pressure.
We're a couple decades into the general public into this inter-tube-network-doohickey. /., gimme a beer would'ja?...
It's been my observation that when advertisers get too smug, they lose their ass to mass protest and activism.
Some group with an opposing idea of privacy to the corporate norm will probably be glad to trade DNT for DOS.
All I have to do is sit back and keep readin'
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
So they don't care what you want, because they want to run their ever larger, bloated, growing websites.
Unless we get a greed cap.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
You have to use reverse psychology on the advertisers. It should have been named "Do Track."
If anyone thought that agencies who have data tracking as their core competence would voluntarily subvert their own business plan, they were simply failing to think things through.
Humans act according to their incentives. People sometimes get confused about this because they think that humans act altruistically and that such action contradicts the "according to their incentives" ideal. Allow me to clarify:
Often, action deemed "altruistic" is actually in very good accord with one's direct incentives. A person makes a relatively small sacrifice in return for the appreciation of his peers (which has long-term value since appreciative peers tend to return favors), a sense of moral uprightness (which has psychological value), and an escape from boredom (and/or depression, social isolation). It is only in very rare cases that altruistic actions are very altruistic at all, and very few people actually engage in them.
There is a significant chunk of the population that doesn't even bother with the above-defined form of altruism, because they get better payoff from profiteering. Rich people don't need friends to return favors, they can just pay people to do whatever they need. So, the incentives rich people face all point at making more money.
the people who devised this standard are morons..
The information that you don't wish to be tracked is useful and ought to be worth something to someone. So sites will need to keep an eye on such visitors, right?
In other words, DNT is predicated on the idea that advertisers will actually respect user wishes, because otherwise users will respond by blocking ads. The point of this article is that advertisers have shown that they do not respect user wishes; the logical conclusion should be that browsers start including things like ABP by default, until advertisers start respecting DNT again (but that won't happen, so we'll just make ad blocking a standard browser feature). Browser makers must include ad blocking or else DNT will truly be pointless; users, by and large, will not install ad blocking extensions on their own.
Palm trees and 8
How about we just go back to pushing ad blocking software? The point of DNT was to show that ad blocking is not necessary, because advertisers will respect users if they can just get a little feedback. Now we see that that is untrue, so let's ditch DNT and get back to ABP etc.
The whole argument for DNT is that advertisers will be compelled to follow it, because if they do not do so then users will start blocking ads. Advertisers are not respecting DNT, so we have to deploy ad blockers now, or else DNT was truly pointless.
Palm trees and 8
Advertisers had a choice: DNT or ABP. DNT is a lot less damaging to advertisers than ABP, since at people will still see advertisements under DNT. DNT was created so that ad blocking would not become a standard feature in browsers; remember when website owners were calling ABP users "thieves?"
Now we follow the game to its conclusion: the advertisers chose to reject DNT, so now we need to install ad blockers everywhere and make ad blocking a standard feature in browsers.
Palm trees and 8
I'm curious how they came to the conclusion Do Not Track didn't actually mean Track and instead meant Advertise.
Ed Bott says that Sarah Downey (Privacy Advocate) says that the IAB says that the IAB membership "will continue to monetize data".
Except that to become an IAB member, a company must comply to the IAB code of conduct, which includes the self-regulatory program for online behavioral targeting. This includes the requirement of providing a consumer choice mechanism, which has been implemented for the industry at www.aboutads.info.
I guess fact checking was too much for Ed...
Stopping serving targetted ads is more of a response than I'd expected.
When you live in a sick society, just about everything you do is wrong.
And I told them that all they are doing is adding their name to a list that someone can download and call...
There are three kinds of people in the world. Those that can count, and those that can't.
That's libertarianism for you. If you don't want to be tracked don't go to those websites.
DNT is a starting point (an egg) it could grow into something useful or die. Failure is not "egg on your face" because you have to take the 1st step for the possibilities to open up.
One possible solution:
Politicians pass a law saying how ad corps must respect DNT. It is far less likely to pass such a law without the technology in place; they have a hard time making industry implement any features.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Okay, then.
Is there any open source software that I can use/modify that will allow me to screw with that data collection? In other words, make stuff up, change it and/or send out repetitive and incorrect information? Maybe build a huge pile of useless information that looks good to the trackers, but hides the 'real' me. Can I make myself undesirable to those that want to track me?
Advertising companies make a big deal about "notice" and "choice." Unfortunately, while they claim to give users the ability to "opt out" of Online Behavioral Advertising (OBA), all they really do is give users the ability not to see ads. They don't necessarily give users the ability not to be tracked. Here's an entire paper about it. http://www.cylab.cmu.edu/research/techreports/2011/tr_cylab11005.html
Here is a radical solution.
I would be less against advertisements being shown but the advertisers not knowing who is seeing the ads.
The only way to do so is for the ads to not be served by advertisers directly, but to be stored either at the publisher, the isp or on the user's computer.
This would be technically feasible, allows publishers like slashdot to pay for costs via advertising, and is desirable because the advertisers have been shown to be untrustworthy.
IF you don't want to be tracked, & to get your speed/bandwidth back you paid for (as well as electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well), better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", reliability (vs. DNS poisoning redirection OR being "downed"), & even anonymity (to an extent vs. DNS request logs) + being able to "blow by" what you may feel are unjust blocks (in DNSBL's) & more...
---
APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32-bit & 64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
---
Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):
---
1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content
6.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution)
7.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
8.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs)
9.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
10.) Blocking out TRACKERS
11.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!)
12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers - whereas the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself...)
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.
---
* There you go... & above all else IF you choose to try it for the enumerated list of benefits I extolled above?
Enjoy the program!
APK
P.S.=> Of course, THIS is NOT going to "go well" with 3 types of people out there online, profiting by advertising & nefarious exploits + more @ YOUR expense as the consumer:
---
A.) Malware makers & the like (botnet masters, etc./et al)
B.) ADVERTISERS - the TRULY offended ones, as it is their "lifeblood" in psychological attack galore, tracking, & more, etc.!
C.) Possibly webmasters (who profit by ad banners, but fail to realize that those SAME adbanners suck away the users' bandwidth/speed, electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O they PAY FOR, plus, adbanners DO get infested with malicious code, & if anyone wants many "examples thereof" from the past near-decade now? Ask!)
---
... apk
The only way they will comply is if they are forced too by laws. Want an example? Do not call list. nuf said
Jack of all trades,master of none
Is there even any good proof that all this tracking is even more effective for the advertiser's customers, than not tracking?
-- Who am I? How did I get here? My God, what have I done?!
As custom hosts files do, & AdBlock's also "crippled by default", allowing ads:
---
Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option
---
AND, per my subject-line above? AdBlock can't DO as much to your benefit as custom hosts files do:
So - IF you:
A.) Don't want to be tracked
B.) Want to get your speed/bandwidth back you paid for (as well as electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well)
C.) Want better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth"
D.) Want better reliability (vs. DNS poisoning redirection OR being "downed")
E.) Want better anonymity (to an extent vs. DNS request logs) + being able to "blow by" what you may feel are unjust blocks (in DNSBL's)
& more...?
---
TRY THIS (100% free & works for all of the above, AND below enumerated benefits):
---
APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32-bit & 64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
---
Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):
---
1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content
6.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution)
7.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
8.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs)
9.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
10.) Blocking out TRACKERS
11.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!)
12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers - whereas the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself...)
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.
---
* There you go... & above all else IF you choose to try it for the enumerated list of benefits I extolled above?
Enjoy the program!
Of course, THIS is NOT going to "go well" with 3 types of people out there online, profiting by advertising & nefarious exploits + more @ YOUR expense as the consumer:
---
A.) Malware makers & the like (botnet masters, etc./et al)
B.) ADVERTISERS - the TRULY offended ones, as it is their "lifeblood" in psychological attack galore, tracking, & more, etc.!
C.) Possibly webmasters (who profit by ad banners, but fail to realize that those SAME adbanners suck away the users' bandwidth/speed, electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O they PAY FOR, plus, adbanners DO get infested with malicious code, & if anyone wants many "examples thereof" from the past near-decade now? Ask!)
Looks like we got the whole industry collecting, buying and selling personal information. They wouldn't give up easily or voluntarily. So, we need government involved. They can fight by moving servers abroad, but that makes it easier to block them.
Well, if they don't want to play fair, we don't have to either. Pushes me to go get proper ad-blocking utilities. I was trying to be nice, allowing ads, but if they don't want to listen when I say I don't want to be mined for data, then I'm just gonna block everything.
Guys, sometimes the pace of "innovation" is slow. Do Not Track was Innovative. No one ever said Innovative had to be actually effective, though it helps public perception more when it is.
Look at the phrase "without actual laws that limit the recording and sharing of ..... identifiable data". Doesn't that sound a lot like ... wait for it ... Copyright? And remember how they don't care where you got your copy from?
Well for the sake of the First Raindrop, I set my User Agent string to a new Creative Commons NC poem by me. So any site that decides to "keep, and massage, and exploit" it (not just sniff!) would be violating my copyright, right?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
...then I guess NoScript and AddBlock are fair game. Excellent. Advertisers should not forget that they depend on our attention, and we're not obligated to give it to them.
Copyright does not protect "identifiable data". It protects creative expression, in order "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
I would be curious to know how a court would treat someone who made an argument as frivolous as "they infringed copyright in my custom User-Agent string". I suspect most courts would settle for relatively minor sanctions, like throwing the case out and making the plaintiff pay the defense's costs. If you try it, please keep us posted!
There are more than 1 alternatives. How about advertising, but not tracking and not serving targeted ads? What's wrong with it, except that it might earn websites less money?
From my 12 years of experience running an online business, I'd still urge everyone to stop dealing with (the mostly) shady online advertising agencies. They're mostly corrupt (expecting and accepting kickback payments from websites so they do not put ads where their customers benefit most, but where they can line their own pockets best), incompetent (still using document.write in 2012 and still trying to push the most annoying ad formats down both publishers' and advertisers' throats when everyone knows that AdSense was hugely successful doing the opposite) and greedy like any other purely parasitic business that adds no value (and usually removes value).
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
If you do not want to be tracked, DO NOT SEND REQUESTS. ...
But sending requests with a "please handle this one but dont use it to track me" comment
Well, did anyone *really* expected that anyone would respect that?
Sorry to say that, but this whole standard never made any sense from the beginning...
Its the same like crying for the ability to make the internet "forget" dumb posts you did to facebook and co.
If you do not want them to be used against you some day in the future, dont post them at all.
What's needed is a plugin like adblock, that doesn't block cookies, but exchanges tracking cookies with other users. This has the effect of making the tracking data useless by mixing it all together. This would require a central website for exchanging the cookies, but some like the FSF or EFF could set it up. The plugin would periodically submit a tracking cookie it has, and get another from a different anon user using the same site.
With that user agent string you are uniquely identifiable everywhere you browse...
The wolves never intended not to eat the sheep carrying a do not eat me ribbon.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
I know I am tired of being tracked and snitched on.
Best money I spend.
The point of do not track was to provide those with a sense of the right to personal privacy (most of the population) with the ability to allow ads through without the worry that their browsing habits were being stored at hundreds of data centers. The targeted ads were just a sign to everyone how disturbing being tracked was, it was a symptom of the problem and not the source of the problem that needed to be cured. The average person was self-medicating for this with adblockers in their browser. And, that's why the advertisers agreed to do not track in the first place, because they'd prefer to get some advertising dollars instead none. They're missing the point by interpreting it the other way, and it's just going to drive people back to adblockers. Me for one.
Really? Was there ever any doubt this would happen? You have to take your privacy into your own hands, you can't trust the fox to guard the hen house. I'm going to continue running ABP, blocking third party cookies, running noscript, and blackholing known ad servers in my hosts file.
The sad part is that if they would just play nice, follow the rules, and respect me, I wouldn't go through all this trouble and I'd actually end up seeing a lot of ads.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
That's the spirit, but those exact actions aren't great in practice. There is room for improvement:
That's exactly on the mark. Of course, that'll make a ton of sites out there stop working, so you need a NoScript like interface to deal with those cases. (I'd sugest naming YesScript, but this one does already exist.)
Not necessary. The same applies for the headers. If you want bowsers to stop leaking info, you'll have to put 3rd party javascript in a sandbox where it can't access any kind of identification info (like screen resolution), the stuff on headers (besides IP) isn't enough to identify someone. I'd put that sandbox as an option at the NoScript like interface. Make 3rd party JS blocked by default, with the options of sandboxing it (includes restricting cokies) or completely allowing.
Block all third party requests untill the user allow them. Put a click-to-show thumbnail in external images (like Flash Block). That'll break a LOT of sites by the way, whitelist the subdomains of the site, so it breaks less of the web. Other objects will have to be tought up one at a time. You can put a menu button for things like sound and javascript, while videos, flash and java get the click-to-show.
Put Flash Block in the browser already. There is simply no reason for not do this, I wonder what is taking Firefox so long.
Rethinking email
Exactly, but what if a piece of data is in both categories? That is what I was exploring. My string is 350 words long, containing computer code, a poem, and essay, code words, and a copyright notice, and an email for inquiries on licensing. So my point was, since that's clearly a creative work, what happens depending upon where it exists and what mechanisms retrieve it, copy it, and re-publish it?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
From the article:
"So, here's the depressing tl;dr version: To advertisers, “Do Not Track” doesn’t mean “Don’t track me.” It just means they should tone down the ads a bit. And even if you explicitly set the option in your browser, it might be ignored by a web server."
First off, why do the advertisers get all of the blame? The ad supported sites/software/services that you are using are allowing and benefiting from targeted advertising. It is clear that ads targeted to one's personal tastes are more effective. I'll have to say that the slashdot crowd is essentially an exception when it comes to advertising - my wife has no problem playing mobile games that are loaded with ads and tracking, she is the one they are interested in, not you.
Second, this part about "It just means they should tone down the ads a bit" seems a bit off base. The ad supported sites/software/services that you are contracting with advertisers to fill ad space. If you cannot be served a targeted ad, you will still be served an ad. Advertisers understand that better targeting increases the effectiveness. The advertisers that allow their ads to be shown anywhere, regardless of targeting, are usually the type of ads that people dislike most (we all love ads for weight loss and smilies, right?).
Also, we have to think about which parts of our Internet experience is public and which parts are private. If you visit a public site that is ad supported, your IP address is public information to that site. Let's say that everyone in your office shares an Internet connection, specifically shares an IP address. Let's say you have DNT set in your browser and your co-worker does not. Let's say you both visit the same site. In one case, the article would have you believe that Do Not Track means just that, in the other case DNT does not apply. What happens is that in both cases the public information is logged, however in the DNT case there will be no targeted advertising (any a priori info is not used to tailor ads to you), the non-DNT browser will likely be served a targeted ad based on a priori information. A key point here is that unless you have direct, personal, relationship with an advertiser (like you are already their customer), your personal details are not being tracked - the cookie you are being tracked with has nothing to do with your name, phone number or other personal information.
My advice is complain the ad supported sites/software/services that you are using that are allowing the tracking that you don't like. You have a choice to not use them. In some cases you have the choice to pay more and remove the ads. I know you live in your Mom's basement and don't get out much but things you do in public are well public. If you don't want to be seen in public then don't go out.
Honestly, the best advice if you don't want to be tracked... Do not allow data storage in Adobe Flash, do not allow your browser to store data, use temporary cookies. A bunch of the other options actually make you more obvious via browser fingerprinting, https://panopticlick.eff.org/. You are better off looking like everyone else, just someone new each time.
Oh, of course.
But "who will know"? I thought for a few minutes, and picked NC-ND for the license. So mere sniffing "isn't commercial" (because that's just the server operating etc), but then the logjam should pop up if someone tries to include it in paid sales data to an ad company, because then that's both derivative and commercial.
Not counting the whole David and Goliath problems, isn't an infringement of a copyrighted work a penalty of X thousand dollars? What legal defense could they have, "we didn't look at the data we collected and didn't know it was a creative work?" Just because "oh, our system automatically collects those" isn't a defense - it contains a notice and an email for license inquiries.
So, if a page has ... say... one min.... Let's try Gizmodo....
Ghostery has found the following on this page:
ChartBeat
Criteo
DoubleClick
Facebook Connect
Google Analytics
NetRatings SiteCensus
New Relic
Parse.ly
Quantcast
ScoreCard Research Beacon
SkimLinks
Typekit by Adobe
Isn't that 1 infringement per advertiser that received that Creative Work in the data?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
A court would not find your "experiment" either very interesting or very amusing. To the extent that you told your computer to present your poem as the browser's identification and configuration, I expect it would be interpreted as a nearly unlimited license to do all the things that web servers normally do with browser agent strings.
That's exactly why I did my little experiment.
So a court wouldn't (supposedly) care about a song being transmitted just because it was dumped in the User Agent Field? Just change the file type at the end to .mp3? Oh, it's a Song, so it matters then, right? Sure, gimme an hour, I'll make it a Song.
This is part of my point that we're not treating all copyrighted works with the same zeal. Movies, followed by Songs, are driving Copyright. But only for Rich organizations, right? Meanwhile the rest of creative works get to suffer? I purposely posted a poem, and an essay, and computer code, and code words, and a notice. That surely makes it a creative work. Just because I stuck it in a place where "automated systems are used to copying stuff" doesn't make it okay to copy.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Well, what did people expect? A simple header flag is like putting up a "do not steal from here" sign next to the front door while leaving the keys in the lock. On the outside.
Firefox, NoScript, AdBlock. And yes, Google and Apple are about the first sites which land on my "untrusted" list. The same on the smartphone/tab AND switching GPS only on if really needed (which is about not at all for me).
Internet ain't quiet, peaceful suburbs. If there is money to make, people will do so.
Can't you just put up some ads to support the lobbying?
It is precisely because you (quite intentionally) stuck your poem in a place where automated systems are used to copying stuff that it makes it okay for automated systems to copy it. You put it there with the full expectation and intent that they would copy it, which is why I think courts would treat it as an implicit license to copy and redistribute.
depends on what the point is.
at least they fit the abbreviation: they do track, but _do _not _tell. .~.
"just to reply to the rant no one will read in its entirety" -
Per my subject-line above vs. your erroneous statement? Some evidence to the contrary... ok?? Here we go (as to how many times this very post OR one much like it from myself has been up-moderated, & thus, read fully as well as appreciated):
* THE HOSTS FILE GROUP 37++ THUSFAR (from +5 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):
BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1869638&cid=34237268
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30272074
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&cid=28197285
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274
APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862260&cid=34186256
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924892&cid=34670128
HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952
HOSTS MOD UP ZEUSTRACKER:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066
HOSTS MOD UP vs AT&T BANDWIDTH CAP:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584
HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36372850
HOSTS and BGP +5 RATED (BEING HONEST):2010 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450
HOSTS & PROTECT IP ACT:2011 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700
HOSTS MOD UP:2011 ->
Rewards cards used to be abundant and the financially responsible consumer could get paid well for using credit cards... The rewards were subsidized by the masses who paid fees for being irresponsible. Then feel-good laws were passed to make it more difficult for CC companies to collect fees from people who abuse credit and now rewards cards are much less rewarding. I am happy with the current situation of me browsing privately for free while the content is subsidized by the masses. And I want my 5% cash back on everything CC back.
Why do I suspect this was downmodded since it shows DNS faults?
Yeah, this makes sense. If you set up a situation where you try to make someone break a law in order to get them in trouble for breaking a lawâ¦when cops do that, it is called entrapment, and I doubt the court would look any more kindly on entrapment by a civilian than on entrapment by a police officer.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Slashdot logic = Posts on AdBlock faults get downmods when true.
https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en
For firefox, use this excellent add-on for white-listing sites to allow cookies. Block all cookies by default, then only click to allow when you need it (login, shopping cart, etc.) A few poorly-coded websites "require" cookies; luckily Cookie Monster has a "Temporary Allow" which lasts for the current browser instance - or until you "Revoke" the temporarily allowed cookies.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-monster/
It was downloaded because it's spam copy and pasted in to almost every comment stream on the site... I don't think it has anything to do with the supposed faults it may or may not expose. and seriously, that text is so long that nobody in their right mind would read it all the way through.
Post truths of FAULTS in AdBlock & get downmodded? Yea, right (not)... especially when the very post I am replying to, one of my own, was @ +1 yesterday, but is NOW -1 "flamebait"?? No way...
* That's alright, because if TRUTH is to be downmoderated? I will just post yet another truth below in my 'p.s.'...
APK
P.S.=> Might as well put one up about GHOSTERY too then, eh? Ok:
GHOSTERY TRUTHS #1: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2931443&cid=40413453
GHOSTERY TRUTHS #2: 2012 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2931443&cid=40413493
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPTS:
---
"Evidon, which makes Ghostery, is an advertising company. They were originally named Better Advertising, Inc., but changed their name for obvious PR reasons.
Despite the name change, let's be clear on one thing: their goal still is building better advertising, not protecting consumer privacy.
Evidon bought Ghostery, an independent privacy tool that had a good reputation.
They took a tool that was originally for watching the trackers online, something people saw as a legitimate privacy tool, and users were understandably concerned. The company said they were just using Ghostery for research.
Turns out they had relationships with a bunch of ad companies and were compiling data from which sites you visited when you were using Ghostery, what trackers were on those sites, what ads they were, etc., and building a database to monetize.
When confronted about it, they made their tracking opt-in and called it GhostRank, which is how it exists today.
They took an open-source type tool, bought it, turned it from something thatâ(TM)s actually protecting people from the ad industry, to something where the users are actually providing data to the advertisers to make it easier to track them.
This is a fundamental conflict of interest.
To sum up: Ghostery makes its money from selling supposedly de-indentified user data about sites visited and ads encountered to marketers and advertisers. You get less privacy, they get more money.
That's an inverse relationship.
Better Advertising/Evidon continually plays up the story that people should just download Ghostery to help them hide from advertisers. Their motivation to promote it, however, isn't for better privacy; it's because they hope that you'll opt in to GhostRank and send you a bunch of information.
They named their company Better Advertising for a reason: their incentive is better advertising, not better privacy"
---
(Ones my downmodder, a totally unjust idiot after that I've put up no less, will NOT like also...)
... apk
Ready to "eat your words", green1? I hope so, cuz here goes (showing opinions CLEARLY vary, vs. yours):
"It was downloaded because it's spam copy and pasted in to almost every comment stream on the site... I don't think it has anything to do with the supposed faults it may or may not expose. and seriously, that text is so long that nobody in their right mind would read it all the way through." - by green1 (322787) on Monday September 24, @05:39PM (#41443117)
First of all - what I posted? Is truth... you downmodded it? Fine...since I will now make YOU, look like the FOOL you are, once again with MORE TRUTHS!
NOW, after that has "all been said & aside" quoted?
Eat your words, after seeing the below evidence vs. your b.s.!
(Since others below have uprated my post on hosts vs. AdBlock, DNS, & other things, MANY times):
---
* THE HOSTS FILE GROUP 37++ THUSFAR (from +5 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):
BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1869638&cid=34237268
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30272074
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&cid=28197285
HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274
APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862260&cid=34186256
HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924892&cid=34670128
HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952
HOSTS MOD UP ZEUSTRACKER:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066
HOSTS MOD UP vs AT&T BANDWIDTH CAP:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584
HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 ->
Gosh, I'm shocked. Advertisers acting unethically? Inconceivable!
"just to reply to the rant no one will read in its entirety," - by Ash-Fox (726320) on Tuesday September 25, @08:22AM (#41448125) Homepage
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3137925&cid=41436069
("Eat your words" yet again, Ash-Fox - 40++ upward moderations which are verifiable & undeniable data to disprove your b.s. quoted above does the job, perfectly - priceless that... lol!)
---
* You just KNOW I've just GOTTA say it, as-is-per-my-usual "inimitable style":
THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'", & it always is, vs. Ash-Fox the troll...
APK
P.S.=> Answer a couple questions for us, Ash-Fox:
---
QUESTION #1:
How many times now is that for you vs. myself due to your blunders?
---
QUESTION #2:
Ahem (rotflmao):
How do your words taste flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" & spiced with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH too?
---
(I can answer #1 for you & post the links to them, lol, but only YOU can answer #2 for us... rotflmao!)...
... apk
How many times now is that for you vs. myself due to your blunders?
---
Now that you had to eat them http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3137925&cid=41448805
1.) Why'd you "eat your words" again http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3137925&cid=41448805 ?
and
2.) How did your words taste (since you had to eat them) flavored with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat" and your foot in your mouth too?
LMAO!
If you want something done right, just do it yourself. Stop using Google (switch to DuckDuckGo) and use Firefox with Ghostery, AdBlock Plus and NoScript... you can throw in Tor, if you really want to toss a wrench into their salad... and if someone is still able to track you after that - they truly deserve to have your information. Trusting someone who stands to benefit financially to do something to limit that gain, will never work. Ever.
Bow before me, for I am root.