Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Think Tank's Website Rejects Browser Do-Not-Track Requests

Posted by timothy on from the at-least-the're-telling-you dept.

alphadogg writes "The website for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) now tells visitors it will not honor their browsers' do-not-track requests as a form of protest against the technology pushed by privacy groups and parts of the U.S. government. The tech-focused think tank on Friday implemented a new website feature that detects whether visitors have do-not-track features enabled in their browsers and tells them their request has been denied. 'Do Not Track is a detrimental policy that undermines the economic foundation of the Internet,' Daniel Castro, senior analyst at the ITIF wrote in a blog post. 'Advertising revenue supports most of the free content, services, and apps available on the Internet.'"

36 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. Well damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here I thought awesome people were responsible for most of the finest free offerings of the internet, turns out it was just penis enlargement all along.

    1. Re:Well damn by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not any more. The same spirit that sysops built and maintained BBSes and the communities that formed around them in the 80s and 90s is what used to drive the web. That sense of fun, enjoyment, contribution, community, education. Where you paid for these things out of your pocket and put in the long hours setting everything up and keeping it running, because you enjoyed the experience and you enjoyed building something that people wanted to use.

      Today, every fucking two-bit mommy-blogger has to plaster ads all over their shitty little 5-hits-per-month blog, just to monetize every last possible fucking cent. Spend $5-$100/mo of your own money to fund your project/web-site/whatever? Crazy! Just throw up some ads so that your site looks like shit. And if you can't get rich doing it, fuck it and move on! It's not worth doing if you can't make five cents from it, even if the cost of making that nickel is molesting your site with obnoxious ads.

      I spent at least $25k over a period of a dozen years building and maintaining a community for about 100k people. I could have monetized it. I could have charged fees. Subscriptions. Or plastered it in ads. But I didn't. Zero ads. No fees. Even though my site allowed other people to make money and start businesses along the way. But I didn't. Why? Well, it never really even occurred to me. I did it because it was fun. Because I learned things from it. Because it was great to watch so many people form around something *I* did. And then to see it benefit their lives. To see people form friendships (even relationships) out of it. To see cons/gatherings form every year or two out of it. To see external sites around it spring up from other people.

      I could have made cash from it, but I didn't. I didn't need to. Not everything has to be done to get rich. Not every fucking inch and second of everything in life has to be done for a buck. And, frankly, fuck these guys for suggesting that it's the only way we get any content on the internet.

    2. Re:Well damn by SternisheFan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thank you for being such a moral person. The world and the internet itself needs more selfless types like yourself. It shouldn't always be about the money.

    3. Re:Well damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I will attempt to speak to the relevant portions of what appears to be your argument: Tracking and advertising are not the same thing. If I listen to the radio (traditional broadcast radio) I hear advertisements, but the radio station is not enabled to sell the information regarding the ads I have heard and found enticing. If they want to do that they have to employ some specific techniques that require both my consent and compliance. This caveat has not prevented radio stations from profiting via advertisement. Due to the idiosyncrasies of the internet the ability to sell information regarding the advertising likely to prove effective upon me does not require my consent or compliance. I reject the position that requiring my consent impedes the creation or distribution of content or the ability of said content creators or providers to profit via advertising. It does prevent data miners and brokers from profiting, but then they don't actually create content now do they?

    4. Re:Well damn by SuperCharlie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I did the same thing with a BBS back in the day. Not quite as large, kudos on that, but still all out of my pocket, all for free, all with no ads. Your post hits the nail on the head. I wish it could be modded higher than 5 as *this* is not only whats wrong with the internet but the monitizing of everything. Great post.

    5. Re:Well damn by jmerlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And, frankly, fuck these guys for suggesting that it's the only way we get any content on the internet.

      I agree. A "think tank" that can't think of a way to monetize content on the internet that doesn't invade peoples' privacy isn't much of a think tank, now is it?

    6. Re:Well damn by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The world and the internet itself needs more selfless types like yourself. It shouldn't always be about the money.

      I wouldn't call the GP selfless. I don't say this because selfless is a dirty word or anything. However, it does seem to be considered a dirty word to point out the GP was pointing out, that not everything should be done for greed. It always causes a twinge of humor and sadness in my heart at how both pride [in one's work] and greed [in money] seem to be the foundation of the "Christian" nation of the US. Yet the obvious truth is it's not so black and while. It's not the choice of being selfish or selfless. There is a difference between putting a few, less obnoxious ads on a website that's heavily used to help fund it and layering on twenty ads on the 5 hits/month blog The only sad part, to me, is that the latter basically mandates ad blocking which hurts the former. That ITIF should basically flip the bird at DNT really misses a major point, I guess; it's not out of the question that in the future ad block software might give the option to only allow ads from those that *do* honor DNT. And if anything, that might well do more to "[support] most of the free content, services, and apps available on the Internet" than anything else.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    7. Re:Well damn by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I guess pre-advertising boom internet just didn't exist or must have really sucked or something.

      The loops one must go through when they want to justify why everyone should bend to the model they want...

    8. Re:Well damn by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If somebody wants to try to make money

      Not when it is at my expense, without my permission, and without providing a clear benefit to me. Tracking my browsing habits without first asking me? Spinning my CPU, eating up my bandwidth (and if I am on a cell connection, that is expensive ), and preventing me from reading the articles I wanted to read? If that is how you make money, then I will install ABP and deny you your money.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    9. Re:Well damn by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Remember adblock users, disable adblock on web sites that rely on ad revenue to operate, and aren't greedy commercial goblins!"

      I don't use AdBlock. I use NoScript and Flashblock, disable 3rd party cookies, and have my browser and global Flash preferences both set to "Never Allow Local Storage".

      That way, ads from sites that AREN'T tracking me show up just fine.

    10. Re:Well damn by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sidewalks are infrastructure too, doesn't mean everybody has to carry billboards or dress like a NASCAR driver.

      Not everything on the web has to be advertising and user tracking. Take them away, and perhaps many sites and businesses will be disrupted, and perhaps the web will change.

      But things change, get used to it.

    11. Re:Well damn by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Besides everyone is missing the elephant in the room which is we used to have sites with ads that worked just fine without tracking someone across 50 damned websites! You had a GIF or JPEG ad, if they clicked on it it took you to where the product in the pic was being sold and you got thrown a few cents for each time someone came referred from your site. Simple.

      Now these assholes want to be able to follow you across the entire web, know every single place you go and what you do because "God damn it we have to monetize every second of these sheeps lives!" well fuck them, if they can't make money with the old business model then let them sell t-shirts or whatever, its not our job to bend over backwards because dumbasses can't figure out how to make money.

      Its like the whole adblocking deal, I block everyone EXCEPT those that say "We promise not to be obnoxious and put flashing sound blasting shitpile ads on our site so please support us by not blocking" so you know what? I don't block those sites. but the absolute second they DO show me some obnoxious flashing speaker blasting ad? Their asses are blocked and all the pleas in the world won't change it.

      Respect is a two way street and if you don't respect me or my right not to be spied upon why the fuck should I respect you or give a shit about your desire to monetize everything I do. The web was here before you, it'll be here after you're gone, please go away and stop wasting space that could be taken up by people that are NOT douchebags, thanks.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. That's fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll just keep using AdBlock Plus, NoScript, etc. and they won't get me to see any ads at all. If on the other hand they respected my desire not to be tracked, I'd have given some simple unobtrusive ads a chance. They're only shooting themselves in the foot.

    1. Re:That's fine by couchslug · · Score: 5, Informative

      "I'll just keep using AdBlock Plus, NoScript, etc."

      I'll keep REMINDING OTHERS to use AdBlock Plus, NoScript, etc.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:That's fine by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed. I dont even mind if they detect that and block me. I'm not prepared to accept the implied contract to make my computer fetch ads over my connection. If they then want to drop their end it's fine.

      I usually let text-ads through because they're just easy to ignore.

    3. Re:That's fine by drooling-dog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what's the point of DNT? Just destroying the ad-funded free content sites.

      If you can't support your site without tracking your users across the web - an unethical practice, IMHO - then I'll hardly be mourning its destruction.

  3. Aha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they're afraid they aren't going to make all the money they have been making with advertisements.

    My take on this: go get a real job.

    1. Re:Aha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not a bad example, though. All they do is approving the submissions of some other people that don't get a single dollar from what they send to the site.

      So they make money of other people's work. True or false?

  4. Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 5, Informative

    We don't deny the right for any site owner to do advertising. If we don't want to see the adds, we can stop going on the site. But what's not normal is tracking visitors across multiple sites and without their consent or knowledge. I recommend everyone to install the ghostery pluggin, just to see how far this has gone (eg: so many sites are displaying trackers from 3rd parties).

    1. Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things by bengoerz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's ironic that Ghostery identifies 6 trackers on this very Slashdot page.

    2. Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, it's like when it rains on your wedding day.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:Advertizing and privacy are 2 different things by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We don't deny the right for any site owner to do advertising

      Only to a certain limit of annoyance, beyond which we install ABP. We crossed that threshold over a decade ago, when all sorts of nasty tricks to avoid pop up blockers started to appear. My mother could not even read a New Yorker article, because some hover ad kept covering the text; I installed ABP for her, and the problem was solved.

      You see, the problem here is that unsolicited advertising annoys people, and it is a terrible way to monetize a product. ABP exists because unsolicited ads had become so annoying on the web, and because those ads were consuming more CPU time than the actual web page they were placed on.

      If we don't want to see the adds, we can stop going on the site

      Which only works if you are willing to cut yourself off from modern society. How do you check the weather? How do you look up the location of a store? This is the reality of life in the 21st century: to do common activities, you start up a web browser, and if you are not using ABP you will be bombarded with advertising.

      But what's not normal is tracking visitors across multiple sites and without their consent or knowledge

      Well, here's the thing: unsolicited advertising is not very profitable, so you can expect the most greedy, underhanded approaches to improving profits. That is part of the problem with using unsolicited advertising as a way to monetize the web, and this stems from the annoyance of seeing unsolicited ads.

      Basically, if your revenue model is based on exploiting people like they are a resource, you are doing the wrong thing, and eventually you are going to face rebellion. That online advertisers do not realize this is a testament to their general worldview: they do not see people, they only see wallets.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  5. Do Not Track != Do Not Advertise by bengoerz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is possible to advertise online without tracking users. It may not be quite as profitable, but it served the Internet well in the early days.

    Besides, you don't need tracking to know that Slashdot's audience is full of nerds who will buy open their wallets to companies like ThinkGeek, NewEgg, etc.

    1. Re:Do Not Track != Do Not Advertise by cratermoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > that loss of revenue means that marginally some sites will close, some will stop offering advanced features, and fewer such new features will be offered?

      Guess what? That's called "capitalism". Can't make money or compete in the market? Out you go. Don't try to use the government or the legal system to force people to allow your marginal and failing revenue model to continue to be profitable.

  6. Re:Foundation of the internet? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    or how about pay for your own fucking bandwidth? I pay for mine.. You pay for yours. You don't have the right to throw up a pile of shit with ads and expect me to hobble my computer and experience to make you money. It's not cable tv.

  7. do not track != do not advertise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do Not Track does not mean Do Not Advertise. It just means don't collect my personal data from every site I visit and form a profile of my habits.

    Honestly, from the way these people are talking you'd think advertising never worked in the past when it wasn't possible to do that.

  8. Stupidity on ITIF part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do Not Track essentially enables people who are concerned about privacy to support the web page owners by still being targets of advertising. To reject their request means "we don't want you looking at our ads" and pushes these people to simply use adblock. Mind that people who are already blocking ads have no use from DNT.

  9. The economic foundation of the internet? by Let's+All+Be+Chinese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The economic foundation of the internet has nothing to do with advertising. The current state of the world wide web does, but they're different things. For a supposedly technology-focused think-tank, I'd expect them to understand that difference.

    The economic foundation of the internet is the advantage gained from interconnecting networks. You care for your bit of network, yet have access to everyone else's too. In return you carry other networks' traffic just as they carry yours. As such, the internet's foundations are those of "being a cooperative".

    The world wide web, now, that's something different. It's the conceptual web made out of various parties' "content" linked together. Since it can be used to show pictures and text from elsewhere, advertising is easily added to many a page. Advertising is used to fund large parts of that, and it's an interesting exercise to imagine what the www would be like without the advertising income. There'd be many fewer websites, especially since many of them currently survive by the grace of advertising income, even exist for the sole purpose of attracting "clicks" to be sold to advertisers. Those would go away right quick.

    What would be left? Discuss.

  10. Economic Foundation of the Internet? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The internet is already paid for. Every home user and business pays their ISP, every small ISP pays their upstream, every large ISP pays to run their lines and to peer, etc.

    Advertising on the internet is a huge assumption. It is assumed that people will:

    1. See the ads.
    2. Click on them if they're interested.
    3. Buy product if they're interested.

    There is no obligation for anyone to do any of these. No contract, written, social, or otherwise, requires people to even see the ads, and as this failed business model dwindles, companies have started tracking users and harvesting information as a business model, simply because they can.

    Where do these overblown assholes get off telling us it's the Economic Foundation of the Internet?

  11. Re:Yeah, well.. by Bigbutt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Joke's on them. I don't think I've ever been to their site.

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  12. Reject their rejection by disabling javascript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Browsing http://www.itif.org/ with noscript installed or javascript disabled, I don't even see their rejection of my DNT header unless and until I enable javascript for the site.

  13. Re:Foundation of the internet? by Neil_Brown · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I control mine

    Absolutely. I would argue against any attempt to prevent someone from running AdBlock Plus or the like — filtering what you allow onto your computer (whether filtering what you ask for from someone else or, less usefully, asking for it and then not displaying it) is absolutely your prerogative too.

    DNT is a slightly challenging use case, to my mind. As I understand it, it means that I request everything on a page, but also send an additional request that some things do not happen with my data. I'm not actually filtering anything, or not requesting certain parts of the page — I'm relying, even trusting, the content owner to behave in accordance with my wishes. Which is partly why I'm not giving up ABP any time soon, just as a promise from everyone on the Internet not to do something I don't want them to do in terms of accessing my server would not lead me to dropping my firewall.

  14. Wrong. Free Software is the fundation of the 'net by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is one area where we are not given enough credit, but the Internet as we know is here thanks to Free Software.

    Sure, most people doesn't realize this, and of those that do, most won't accept it, but it's still the truth. What allowed the internet to grow so big? Do you think Google would exist if they had to pay an expensive Unix license for every machine they own? Sure, they might be able to afford it now, but they didn't years ago, and they would have never gotten this far. Even now it would be a huge hit on their wallet. Take the Internet as it exists right now. Remove GNU/Linux and *BSD, Bind, Apache, SSH, MySQL/PostgreSQL, PHP, Perl, Python, nginx, squid, rsync. I can go on and on. Now remove 90% of all web apps out there. Remove Wordpress, Joomla, and just about every other CMS. Now take the client side. Remove KHTML (And with that webkit, and therefore Safari and Chrome), remove Firefox. Remove Android. What are we left with? I think if you remove all Free Software from the Internet, aside from the fact that there would be no root DNS servers and most of the routers would be down, and what servers are still intact? microsoft.com? I'm pretty sure even they relay on Free Software.

    So, Fuck off ITIF. It's not advertisement. Many people think content should be pay for, that content couldn't exist without advertisement, well,you are using the most advanced infrastructure ever created to create and serve your content, and the infrastructure was created for free. Certainly we can create some GPL'd cat pictures, porn and tech articles to replace your stupid content. Please go away.

    All the pro-advertisement self-entitled idiots are using trillions of dollars of infrastructure the community created for free, and they go "But our dong jokes are priceless. We need money!". Well fuck you.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  15. Browsers need to fix tracking by mounthood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Browsers need to fix tracking, like they did for popups and malware sites. Aggressive technical measures can bring tracking networks in line. Tracking networks pay popular websites to include their crap and then sell the data they collect. Make it a pain for websites that include 300 tracking networks and we'll be attacking the money.

    At the very least browsers should:
    * Lockdown the user-agent string
    * Force plugins (like flash) to either not have cookies (or storage), or let the browser control any tracking
    * Raise awareness by warning users when they are obviously being tracked
    * Limit the number of cookies generated by visiting a single web page -- don't let one page lead to 300 cookies from hundreds of domains

    Here's an idea: the browser won't download anything from any 3rd party domain, unless the primary website asserts responsibility for the 3rd party domain (either in source or headers). No website would want to take responsibility for an advertising network, much less a tracking network. Advertisers would be under enormous scrutiny to not track people, because their clients would be the ones getting sued.

    Here's another idea: Mozilla runs it's own adblock-style blocking list. Companies would have to convince Mozilla they're not tracking people, and possible sign legal agreements to enforce it. Mozilla could simply block any site they don't think is acting honorably. If they collected info on 0 byte images they'd know most of the worst players right away.

    Another idea: browsers could auto-change identities every 10 minutes; like switching to a new profile. If cookies from active tabs were saved it would eliminate 80% of the problems without the user having to do anything.

    --
    tomorrow who's gonna fuss
  16. Re:Bad TFA by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 5, Informative

    While most of us don't have much contact with think tanks and lobbyists, we do certainly see the results of their work. ITIF is very much pushing for stringent IP protections. Think cheerleaders for SOPA/ACTA.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  17. Entitlement by fox171171 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think you each have valid views, but the issue as I see it, isn't quite what either of your points are about.

    It's the sense of entitlement.

    Some folks seem to think that because they create content, or enable others to create content, on the internet, that they are entitled to make money.

    (Sounds like some people from the music industry.)

    You can try to make money, or don't try to make money. But if you are trying, and fail, don't blame anyone else, and don't bitch and moan that we're a bunch of no-gooders ruining your fun because we don't want you looking over our shoulders and following us around recording what we do.

    Not sure who decided the internet population is there to provide income. It's not.

    I'm pretty sure if I was standing following one of these people around all day in 'the real world' taking video and notes of everything they did, they would be pretty upset. And when I said "You have to let me, I am making money doing this," I doubt that would make them okay with it.

    At least in the real world, when someone is peeking in your windows, or reading over your shoulder, sooner or later you'll notice them, and possibly have them charged. Why is it different on the internet? Because most people can't see you snooping around, it's okay?