Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Advertisers Never Intended To Honor DNT

Posted by timothy on from the creative-interpretation dept.

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."'"

17 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Missing the Point? by kraln · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Missing the Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Isn't that missing the entire point?

      Maybe, but not collecting and monetising the data is missing the point of trying to make money, and we can't have that now can we?!

      They don't seem too different to the music industry: they can't quite grasp that pissing people off may be a bad way to try making money out of them, and if you try to avoid their countermeasures you're obviously someone who wants something for nothing and a terrible person.

    2. Re:Missing the Point? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should they honour it? It's the browser which is voluntarily giving out identifiable data! Sort your browser out if you don't want to be tracked.

      DNT is the same as saying passwords aren't required, because there's a "do not impersonate me" standard.

    3. Re:Missing the Point? by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think I ever understood the point in the first place.

      A polite request to please not track you, made to an industry that exists solely to make money out of tracking people?

      Yeah, that was going to work...

    4. Re:Missing the Point? by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you see no difference between an elected administration and a private entity with no democratic oversight?

      At the end of the day, the reason why companies are let doing perfectly dickish things in the US is people believe that the government would be worse. And so vote for people who promise they'll let companies be dicks.

      The stupid, it hurts.

    5. Re:Missing the Point? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Social compact" - what pretentious bollocks.

      Your browser is leaking your info - fix that. Trying to stop people taking advantage is so utterly the wrong approach here, its the same as any security related issue - make your end as secure as you possibly can, because the world is a big wide open and very bad place. You cannot control the other end, but you can control what you are leaking.

      Also, pathetic hacks like DNT do not work even when backed with legal status - the internet is not one jurisdiction, but your browser certainly is... fix your data leakage at the source, not at the receiving end.

    6. Re:Missing the Point? by fast+turtle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And the first thing that the Mozilla Devs need to do is delete the Unique ID for Safe Browsing from the firefox code base as it's a cookie that can't be deleted. For those using Firefox and it's derivitives, change the Safe Browsing ID to "0" and help Poisson Googles Data. What really bothers me about this issue is that even when "In Private" browsing is enabled, this unique ID is being passed to Google, in direct violation of my intentions when entering "In Private" mode. This is just one more reason I rarely use Firefox. Opera has a similar feature and I suspect it does the same. Sorry but Safe Browsing needs to be completely anonymous instead of tracking us like it does now.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
  2. This is where someone will say... by someone1234 · · Score: 5, Informative

    What ads? I use noscript and adblock.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    1. Re:This is where someone will say... by JayRott · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course, by doing this you get folks screaming "You are STEALING content! How do the content creators get paid?!?" I have no problem with websites making a buck, and I would even go back to viewing ads as long as they are not obnoxious or folowing me around the entire net. If they can't respect me enough to honor my choices I can't respect them enough to loan them my eyeballs. The internet was a huge push forward for information sharing, but I simply can't get behind every internet user having a dossier encompassing every site they visit or every purchase they make used for god-knows-what by god-knows-who!

    2. Re:This is where someone will say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't forget Ghostery.

      Indeed, don't forget to avoid it. it is a product of the advertising industry itself, specifically Evidon.

      Don't you think they love the metrics it provides about the types of ads and beacons that people are choosing to block?

      Let's see what Ghostery's maker says:

      That technology includes Ghostery, Evidon’s browser tool that reports on data collection across 26 million websites and informs the company’s business control solutions.

    3. Re:This is where someone will say... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would even go back to viewing ads as long as they are not obnoxious

      As far as I am concerned, the only advertisements that are not obnoxious are the ones that I specifically ask for. When do I specifically ask for advertising? When I search for products on Amazon, when I go to Craigslist, when I use Google Shopping to compare prices, etc. It is no surprise that those things are so overwhelmingly successful (both in terms of money and in terms of utilization): there is no incentive for anyone to block them, because they are giving people something useful and something people want.

      The reason advertisers have such a bizarre interpretation of do-not-track is that they know they cannot make any money by respecting people. That's why I use ABP and NoScript: advertisers do not respect me, so I will not let them consume my screen space, CPU cycles or bandwidth.

      As for the poor websites that claim they will go under without advertisers...well, maybe they should stand up for their users and say, "No, obnoxious, disrespectful advertising is not allowed on this website." What happened to just showing me a picture that says, "This product is better than the rest!" and leaving it at that?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:This is where someone will say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You have to volunteer that data by activating their ghostrank option. There was a AMA on reddit where the devs have said that you can unpack the archive and examine the data yourselves if you don't trust them. Apparently all it sends back to them is what advertisers ghostery saw.

  3. Wasn't the point... by toxickitty · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  4. Please don't eat me by Chemisor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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?"

  5. More elaborate schemes? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:More elaborate schemes? by Emetophobe · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes ABP is great for blocking ads, but Ghostery will block the tracking cookies ABP doesn't care about.. A plus for Ghostery is it remove all of the +1, Facebook, and Twitter links from around the web that I could care less about.

      ABP can do that aswell if you subscribe to the Anti-Social filter. Scroll to the very bottom of this page: http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions. It's under Miscellaneous.

    2. Re:More elaborate schemes? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it would be more harmful to those people junking up the web if we made a browser extension that clicked on every +1, like, and follow button you surf past.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.