Slashdot Mirror


Yahoo Will Ignore IE 10's "Do Not Track"

dsinc writes "And so it begins... Yahoo has made it official: it won't honor the Do Not Track request issued by Internet Explorer 10. Their justification? '[T]he DNT signal from IE10 doesn't express user intent" and "DNT can be easily abused.'" Wonder what percentage of users would rather be tracked by default.

35 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    See now, the trouble here is that all of these privacy settings rely on corporate "good will", when there is no such thing.

    Really, the only way to ensure your privacy is extreme paranoia. Sorry.

    1. Re:Shocking by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's even more shocking is that there's people still using Yahoo.

    2. Re:Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, not at all. The real shock is anyone thinking that Microsoft isn't the one to blame here.

      They didn't follow the standard, again, and so they knew the switch in IE would be ignored.

    3. Re:Shocking by captain_sweatpants · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You seem to have neglected to read this bit, so I'll repeat it for you

      They didn't follow the standard, again

      Anyway it's a pointless standard so the argument is moot. A voluntary standard that gets in the way of profits is a standard that will never be followed.

    4. Re:Shocking by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I use flickr and mostly (same reason people stick with 'certain social networks') its because there are some really good people I stay in touch with. its a damned shame that flickr is also yahoo.

      I have quite a complex set of adblock filters for yahoo and they often get in the way when I try to do some editing in flickr. some dialogs take nearly a minute to pop up! god knows what jscript evil they are doing, but my systems just hangs and times out until their crap gives up and finally presents me with the dialog box I was trying to get (move photos into a group, etc). their STUPID gui programming interlaces too well with the ads and stuff that catches my filters, the site is nearly unusable. and its totally unusable without any filtering. lose/lose.

      its a shame yahoo has mostly died. we do need alternatives. but their mail is unusable on my system and flickr is mostly unusable if you try to do anything other than a simple upload and tag.

      hell, even dpreview (used to be a good photo site) has jumped the shark with their new reinvention of their web code. almost nothing works for me, there, now.

      what is it with webmasters and the desire to use the most broken coding they can get away with? this really is breaking the web. the web was NOT meant for your javascript 'catch me if you can!' bullshit. it really was not!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Shocking by tofubeer · · Score: 3, Informative

      They do 100% the opposite of what the draft "standard" says...

      http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/drafts/tracking-dnt.html#determining

      "A user agent must have a default tracking preference of unset (not enabled) unless a specific tracking preference is implied by the decision to use that agent. For example, use of a general-purpose browser would not imply a tracking preference when invoked normally as "SuperFred", but might imply a preference if invoked as 'SuperDoNotTrack' or 'UltraPrivacyFred'."

      IE 10 does not imply a tracking preference.

      To be fair this was changed recently, but on the other hand Microsoft has had plenty of time to change the default setting. The could have the browser start the first time on a page that let's the user change the setting and be complaint.

    6. Re:Shocking by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Interesting

      proactively tagged and tracked by their ISP and cell phone carrier who sell their information to the highest bidder.

      In the civilised world this is illegal and the mobile networks are legally required to provide proper privacy. In fact, employees occasionally go to jail for breaching telecom privacy rules. It does happen in some countries but that is an exception. There are plenty of us who would spend money to have that kind of privacy guarantee extended to internet connections.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    7. Re:Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is a VERY recent change to the standard which was put in AFTER MS gave users an option which was well within the standard. Advertisers realised they would be fucked so they changed the standard.

    8. Re:Shocking by TrueSpeed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Verizon must operate in a non civilised world then. Verizon proactively collects and sells your information unless you log into their portal and turn off the service - providing you can find it. And Verizon isn't the only one - they all do it. Why would any company turn down such as easy way to make money that requires virtually no effort on their part.

    9. Re:Shocking by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Verizon must operate in a non civilised world then.

      Correct.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    10. Re:Shocking by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A voluntary standard that gets in the way of profits is a standard that will never be followed.

      Which is why it needs to be made law. In the EU companies now have to ask for permission to use cookies. The result is that when you visit web sites there is a notification bar or similar. It was derided when it came in but actually it has raised awareness of cookies and tracking a great deal, if nothing else.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Shocking by sjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They followed it just fine. They allow the user to choose the common default configuration and CORRECTLY guessed that most commonly, people don't want to be tracked like an animal.

      If the user would like to be tracked, they may choose that as well. It's not like allowing tracking requires a registry hack.

    12. Re:Shocking by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're conflating having your physical position logged and having your viewing choices logged. I can't control the former while still using a cellphone, but I can control the latter to some extent by using https forcing and cookie management plugins and a google proxy site like startpage.

      Granted it's hardly bulletproof, but it's infinitely better than broadcasting everything in the clear, and having every question that ever pops into my head logged by one corporation.

      I'm under no illusion as to how far this setup is from being remotely private. For the tiny amount of effort involved, the modest improvement seems perfectly fine.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    13. Re:Shocking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Advertisers realised they would be fucked so they changed the standard.

      No, advertisers doesn't get fucked with the no-tracking implemented. They will still be able to advertise and will still be able to place targeted ads on web-pages that have a specific theme like ads for computer related products on a gaming related page.
      The only thing this does is that they can't have the same advertisements follow me around wherever I go.

      I don't like to have Element 14 ads when I browse for porn and I certainly do not like to have porn ads when I browse for electronics.
      I am in completely different mindsets when I do the two different things and the targeted ads creates a connection between me being irritated and whatever they are advertising.

      The no-tracking might not be what advertisers wants but it is good for them too.
      It's the same way with your dog. He might not like the leash since it prevents him from chasing cars, this doesn't mean that chasing cars is good for him.

    14. Re:Shocking by deergomoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Am I in the minority by really not giving a shit about being tracked? It's not personally identifying and I'd rather be shown ads that are relevant than something I have no interest in. For example, a few weeks ago Slashdot were running Nexus 7 adverts. First ad I've clicked in 10 years or so.

    15. Re:Shocking by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Informative

      And now Yahoo doesn't either as they can't tell if the user made an active choice in setting the DNT or not. Hell I could set my user agent string, scripts, return data e.t.c. to simulate IE10 and still be tracked with DNT on. Just go to show how utter useless DNT really is without a legal framework.

      I don't think anybody really cares whether the do-not-track option is set or not. It sure as hell does not seem to matter to Facebook. The other day I kept being bothered by an nag screen due to an invalid Facebook SSL certificate. Setting the do-not-track check-box in my browser had no effect, it wasn't until I installed a dedicated Facebook blocker that the damn thing went away. If you want anonymous browsing don't rely on do-not-track options, either get yourself some sort of a general purpose anti tracking addon for your browser or download a browser specially designed for anonymous browsing.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    16. Re:Shocking by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 5, Interesting

      False - they followed the standard. Then somebody on the standards committee (Fielding, presumably) *changed* the standard.

      Look at the date stamps on the released versions of the W3C standards - look at the minutes of the meetings of the committee. If you have more than half a brain you will notice that the change between the most recent version and the previous version of the standard - which *did not* have the default clause you seem to think has been there for ever - was not discussed in any meeting.

      The WC3 is being influenced by shills. I'd put money on there being some Yahoo! input on the W3C committee.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    17. Re:Shocking by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > The WC3 is being influenced by shills. I'd put money on there being some Yahoo! input on the W3C committee.

      Oh Jesus, it's worse than I thought. Head over to
      http://www.w3.org/2012/dnt-ws/

      Right on the front page - a hiuge great banner:
      """
      Workshop Sponsor

      sponsored by Yahoo!

      Contact W3C if you are interested in Sponsorship
      """

      Corrupt as fuck.

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
  2. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even Apache doesn't honor DNT if it has been issued by IE10

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/262150/apache_web_servers_will_ignore_ie10s_do_not_track_settings.html

    1. Re:Why not? by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If giving users privacy by default is ignoring the spec then the spec is already meaningless.

      As such I and no doubt many others will continue to use ad-blockers and roll out ad-blockers to friends, family, and the businesses we work for to ensure that if they're going to track us regardless of our DNT setting, then they wont get any ad-revenue at all.

      So here's the thing, if I go into IE's options and disable DNT, and then re-enable it giving express consent according to the DNT spec then tell me, why is my DNT option still going to be ignored by Apache, Yahoo etc. hmm? Who is breaking the spec to make money and suit themselves then?

  3. Obviously by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it really a surprise that a failing business like Yahoo! would ignore its users in an attempt to make money?

    Look, the obvious lesson here is that no business can be trusted to keep secrets. Also: Water is wet, fire is hot. Don't give out anything you don't want to get out there, no matter what some PHB promises you.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  4. Yahoo Leads the Way by ohnocitizen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yahoo leads the way forward, whether it is in their innovative email platform with intuitive ui (ads), their reporting (entertainming/advertising) with an insightful comments from the community (tea partying racists), or their home page that I haven't visited but I hear has relevant content (ads) - Yahoo is the future. We can't expect anything less than a rejection of IE's fascist desire to make advertising less lucrative. After all, users want nothing more than for the advertising they see to be as intrusive and lucrative for companies as possible.

  5. Makes it easy by Joe+U · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now I know to do full ad and cookie blocking for yahoo sites.

    Thanks Yahoo, you made my decision easier.

  6. Re:Why assume permission? by BeanThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why should the rule not be that, absent my express permission for them to track my comings and goings, they do not have permission?

    Basically, it should be, this is common sense. The problem now is for those in the advertising industry whose business model has been based on the ability to deceptively trick the majority of users into not realizing just how badly they're being tracked online and how broadly their info is being sold etc.

    I think if your business model is based on tricking people into doing something that they would reject if they fully knew and understood what you were doing, then you are doing something wrong.

    That said, I think the claims that the industry would just die without the ability to track users are overblown. I think the effectiveness of personalized advertising is exaggerated, as well as the perceived value in compiling detailed user profiles with full web histories. The reason is that targeted advertising doesn't really increase the number of dollars available to chase after goods. Example: you don't really suddenly decide to buy a motorcycle because of a targeted advert ... in most cases you probably decided you wanted a motorcycle first, and then you probably anyway ignored most the adverts in order to do some more solidly grounded market research, e.g. looking at the specs of the bikes, getting some advice from friends or online forums, and looking at what motorcycles actually appeal to you. A targeted ad in that case might make you statistically very slightly more likely to favor another brand .... but for most people the decision will be based mostly on things like advice from friends, comparison of specs, and test rides. And after you buy the motorcycle, those dollars are basically no longer available to spend on all the other crap being advertised online to you.

    If targeted advertising based on tracking your data etc. was as useful as has been claimed, Facebook would have made a killing from it, but instead it was a flop, and they have now desperately resorted to just making companies pay for 'sponsored posts' now instead to dump the crap in your feed.

  7. Re:Huge percentage are IE users by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Informative

    What's even more shocking is that there's people still using Yahoo.

    When working on any neophytes or old persons computer Yahoo is there under IE with the default homepage 80% of the time. Reason being is the crapware that OEMs install as well as ISP software both reset the users homepage too it for $$$ cash back.

    Ones with MSN as the default page are typically corporate users. If MS decided not to be retarded and capture the market from Google they would put it in the Windows contract to not change the homepage at the OEM level. ... anyway I can see why Yahoo would be threatened by this as smart users like us who go to sites like slashdot use an alternative browser. Or if we do use IE we change the homepage to Google or something similar. Yahoo is the oldschool portal that regular people use who are not into computers very reminiscent of AOL back in the day 10 years earlier.

  8. Re:And users will continue by zill · · Score: 3, Funny

    AOL is still around, somehow, though I have no fucking clue how.

    Lies! I haven't received any free coasters from them for years now.

  9. Why rely on this for your privacy? by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Informative

    DNT+, Ghostery these are all out there. Frankly there's probably very few websites now that don't track your IP address and other details with multiple
    trackers.

    Hell go to cnn.com and Ghostery blocks 10 trackers alone. Two of those are )(*@!@)*# Facebook trackers. Frankly, the amount of information people are collecting about our web browsing activities is becoming staggering and I for one won't rely on a company saying they'll honor "Do not Track" options from the browsers.

    As Navin Johnson said "It's out there, see a doctor get rid of it" - The Jerk

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  10. Yahoo has this 100% correct by frobbie · · Score: 3, Informative

    The W3C DNT spec explicitly says that a browser should not set this by default, yet Microsoft is completely ignoring the spec and turning it on by default. What Yahoo is doing it 100% correct - it's the only right answer to Microsoft completely ignoring the DNT spec, both in it's intent as well as it's actual words. Every other major web property WILL do the same. Apache already has a patch to ignore DNT from IE10, now Yahoo is doing the same, and the rest will follow.

    1. Re:Yahoo has this 100% correct by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Informative

      The W3C DNT spec explicitly says that a browser should not set this by default, yet Microsoft is completely ignoring the spec and turning it on by default.

      No, when you first run IE10, it asks if you would like to turn DNT on as a recommended setting. The user has the choice. Before you say, "Nobody reads that anyway!" keep in mind that the justification for privacy invasion by sites like Yahoo is that they "clear" state it in the fine print (which, in fact, fewer people read).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  11. Re:Stupid choice from Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    They should have made a huge startup dialog "Do you want to be tracked"

    Have you actually seen the startup dialog?

    It's not that DNT is on by default; as is made clear, choosing the Express settings will turn it on.

    The browser out of the box does not have DNT set in either state.

  12. *I* Rather be tracked by default by Quick+Reply · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It makes me feel good inside to know that I am creating revenue for the website that I visit, which helps cover the cost of providing that website. Tracking a user and giving targeting advertising increases the value of the advertising campaigns, which translates into more money for the website.

    If we didn't have this, the web is going to become subscription-only very quickly.

    Slashdot gives me the option to "Disable Advertising" for having positive Karma, but I choose not to use this.

    What is annoying, is that the tracking wouldn't be an issue if the online advertising industry would be more honest to consumers about their practices from be beginning so that it would have been accepted early on, and also not give online advertising a bad name by not tricking websites into displaying ads that the web developer has said not to, and also allowing intrusive or misleading advertising (like how many fake 'Download' buttons do you see on Download sites for example).

    1. Re:*I* Rather be tracked by default by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with you yet I do have a very strict ad blocker in effect. Why, you ask?

      Because I do NOT want to reward pages that trick me into visiting them by allowing them to spam ads at me. Rather, I would prefer to damage them by increasing their bandwidth without getting them any ad revenue in turn. If enough people did it, such pages that hook onto common search queries without actually providing the relevant information would quickly cease to exist.

      If, and only if, a page offers me what I want, be it information, entertainment or just a joke, I go out of my way to enable their ads if, and only if, they don't slap me in the face with popups and more windows opening than the average person can close in a lifetime. If the ads are actually on topic (like Slashdot's are more often than not, interestingly) I will even click them to see what's on the other end of it.

      Ads are not bad by definition. Ads can actually be very informative, I would have never discovered a few games and other goodies I treasure if it was not for ads. They received their bad name by ad companies that thought it's a bright idea to make them annoying. Annoying ads don't work in the online world where I, not the ad company, decide what I'll get to see. Make ads informative and you'll see people will not only stop blocking them, they'll actually follow the link they provide to learn more about the product.

      Of course, for that to work you'd first of all need a product that people actually wanted and that doesn't need hard selling...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:*I* Rather be tracked by default by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, because before ads and subscription only became the norm there was nothing on the internet whatsoever, no content at all, nope, none whatsoever. Even sites like Wikipedia don't actually exist and we all just imagined them because they don't have ads or tracking so they can't possibly be real.

      For what it's worth the quality of content has gone down with the increase in ad-revenue run sites. You only have to look at Slashdot for example - nowadays due to being so reliant on gathering ad-revenue they regularly post stories that are out and out flamebait and not correct, informative, or interesting whatsoever purely to gain ad-revenue. Ad run websites have merely created a race to the bottom- to provide as much untrue inciteful bollocks as possible to make people come and see what the fuss is all about to increase ad revenue.

  13. Re:Microsoft should... by tuppe666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is anyone else bothered by the fact that MICROSOFT gives more of a shit about the end user than everyone else?

    All that Microsoft did achieve...and all it could achieve is to have others ignore the functionality. They actually destroyed its functionality by embracing it. If Microsoft gave a shit it would be using Tor, or creating similar technology...or even just making their own OS less spyware. I was shocked at how much information Windows 8 wanted from me.

  14. Percentage of users who don't want to be tracked by fgouget · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wonder what percentage of users would rather be tracked by default.

    According to a 2012 Pew Internet study, 73% of search engine users said they were against tracking by the search engines, and 68% were against targeted advertising.

    The corollary is that respecting DNT even for IE 10 matches what over 70%(*) of the users want, while ignoring it only satisfies the wishes of 28%(**) of the users.

    (*) I'm starting with the 'targeted ads' numbers which are the more conservative ones. The survey shows 28% of the users want them and 68% oppose them. Furthermore another study shows that, when they have to manually hunt and set DNT, 5 to 6% of the overall population turns it on. Given that we know 68% favor DNT that means 7 to 9% of the users will go through the hassle. So if DNT is on by default on IE 10 we can expect 7 to 9% of the I-want-targeted-ads crowd to turn it back off which translates to 2 to 2.5%. So if DNT is honored for IE 10 these 2 to 2.5% users will get what they want as well as the 68% who are fine with the default setting, yielding a total of 70 to 70.5% users getting what they want.

    (**) Or, conversely, going against the wishes of 68% of the users (the remaining 4% don't know what they want).