Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome Introduces Do Not Track
sfcrazy writes "Google has started rolling out the latest update to its Chrome browser which brings the 'do not track' option to users. With this move Google has joined major browsers who support this standard. Just like other browsers Google allows users to enable it."
Assuming this is a serious question, as I understand it, the browser, when requesting a page, will set a flag denoting your "do not track" status. It's up to the site to honor the request or not (which more often they don't). Of course, if you were being facetious, then feel free to ignore this.
Why is this modded down? It simply doesn't make sense for a company to give something away for free and cut off their product. Google will always extract as much user info as they can from all of their software products. It's their entire business model!
Google would never, ever cut off their product, which is user data and patterns. It doesn't make any business sense at all.
All this can possibly do is turn of targeted ads to give the illusion of not being tracked.
They do not have too. At least not at the browser level. Why do you think Google introduced Google DNS? All Google needs is a DNS record at your IP address on what you do by IP address. This way Google's ad network is covered while competitors are not ;-)
So they can still put DNT and it is good as least you have 1 stalker Google. No one else.
http://saveie6.com/
Cuz "Do Not Track" is a farce.
Just ask Mark Zuckerburg. He's worth billions because FaceBook's technology is designed to slice and dice your online existence.
And what about the gub'ment? You think they're gonna stop monitoring electronic communications just because Chrome gives you a feel-good button to click?
No one cares that you want privacy. Just as Scott "Get Over IT" McNeally.
At least he was honest about it.
honestly i hate those targeted ads always trying to sell me something i already bought last week lmao get rid of those and i couldn't care less if they track me or not really
I trust this feature works as advertised as much as I trust them with my data.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The beautiful thing is that it is one more bit that they can use to identify and track you!
So they can claim Chrome is the only browser that truly protects your privacy by pointing out that Safari & IE's privacy settings are ignored by the top search engine?
Google would never, ever cut off their product, which is user data and patterns. It doesn't make any business sense at all.
not that simple. consider chrome users that care about being tracked ....
1. google doesn't support "do not track". people that care use some other browser.
2. google supports "do not track". people that care continue to use chrome, and disable tracking.
in this simple scenario, they don't lose anything by supporting do no track. in reality, they gain, because,
a. it's better to have more people tied in to their browser, even if they aren't being tracked
b. many people will reject the browser outright because of bad PR resulting from #1, even if they don't really care about being tracked
Most people don't want tracking because of scumbag marketers and data gathers; groups who are the least likely to follow the spirit of DNT. Yet for a website like mine GeoAmigo.com. I track one thing and that is your login. I am fairly certain that people who use my site are 100% happy with my tracking as then they don't log in over and over. I cookie this so that the next time you come back to check to see if new people are in your area you don't have to log in again. If you log out the cookie is killed.
So it shouldn't be do not track but do not sell my data to data whoring scumbags.
This where the law needs to get with the 21st century. I have a simple suggestion. That any organization or logical part of an organization cannot share your data without your written permission with anyone else on the planet. Thus the billing department for a company can't even share your contact info with the marketing department let alone any third party. Also they need to make obtaining this permission a separate document. They can't have a small section of a larger form forcing you to agree to this. Also agreement to sharing the data cannot be a condition to any other agreement. This way the phone company can't say you don't get an account without sharing data.
The reason for this would be that with the push of a button a company can share millions of records with any dirtbag they feel like. So make it hard work to share data.
I use different addresses (same location but mistakes that don't matter) for nearly every company I deal with so I can see who is selling my data. Nearly all of them are. They might argue that it is for my own benefit but if I don't want it then it isn't for my benefit but to my detriment.
They do have their own browser.
And of course the whaling and gnashing of teeth.
So now the *good* guys will no longer track you. I don't get the logic.
and they won't waste their time on the small minority that are savvy enough to enable the feature and instead milk the majority for all its worth.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
but I am sure they have a "work-around" in place, now that they have added this feature.
If you were serious, you could use one of a million extensions for it. It's not as though updating chrome ever really breaks extensions.
But you weren't being serious. You were just being spiteful by showing your negativity towards a browser you don't have any intention of using.
I think that this is a nod to the idea that BGP is still the foundation of the internet.
If the real world knew how the inet worked and that trust between actual human beings was a factor they would freak out.
So is Google trying to slowly try to tell the populace that BGP is real? I would say yes.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
If they didn't then people might realise they shouldn't use a browser from an advertising company. Plus they will just disregard the setting anyway. They had no problem by-passing safari's settings so I'm sure they are happy to do it to their own browser.
Now, when selected, no more Facebook or tons of other websites tracking you. Now only Google...
No self-respecting whales have teeth - baleen plates for the whine.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Um, actually they are following industry standards, as much as I hate to say it. IE turns it on automatically which is against industry standards (and basically makes it useless because buissness will only follow it if a minority of users are using it, they can't afford to do otherwise).
null
No, its not great for users. No one has any reason to follow this standard if it is on all the time because they make money off tracking people - it akin to telling all the ad networks that the new standard is to not track anyone at all, are they going to lose money and do that? No, they are not.
null
So you don't mind if i keep a file on all your likes, dislikes and habits as long as i don't show you the depth?
Rocket Surgeon.
Killer whales have no self respect? :(
They let themselves be put in captivity as playthings for humans - that's not a life of respect. :-( Respect to the ones who actually use their teeth as a way of voicing their complaints.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Google DNS can only tell the domain, not the specific page you were looking at, so it's much less useful than other kinds of trackers. Yeah, they might know you've been to e.g. Amazon, but they have no idea what products have you looked at.
Considering that the number of people who block tracking is ridiculously low, I think the data from DNS is hardly useful.
Dilbert RSS feed
This is just like Microsoft to muscle companies into what they want. I am for DNT but I don't like how Microsoft makes companies do what they want them to do by using there desktop leverage.
http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
It's called the evil bit.
And it doesn't work, either. Ignoring the Do Not Track standard won't give you a case against them because:
The Do Not Track standard is why I don't use Chrome: Google believes (and probably rightly so) that its users are idiots. This is designed to give the user a false sense of security, and to further entrench Google's position in the market.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
So how does this impact Google Analytics? I don't agree with the advertising industry stating "we won't support this", maybe an unscrupulous business or two. I know many good advertising businesses which have a strict permission-based flow and would support the end-users' preference.
Having some fun...writing front-end code.
IE is correct to go against industry standards in this case.
Not that it matters, becasue everyone will turn it on and industry will ignore it becasue they have exactly ZERO reason to do what it says.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Do Not Track doe snot stop them form gathering information. Just stops targeted ads. It's useless in any privacy way of thinking.
Enabling ‘Do Not Track’ means that a request will be included with your browsing traffic. Any effect depends on whether a website responds to the request, and how the request is interpreted. For example, some websites may respond to this request by showing you ads that aren't based on other websites you've visited. Many websites will still collect and use your browsing data - for example to improve security, to provide content, services, ads and recommendations on their websites, and to generate reporting statistics.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If they had self respect, the wouldn't be falsely called 'Whales'. The would be confident enough to be comfortable with being a specie of Dolphin.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Can't track me if I don't accept your cookies.
Do you load images? (tracking pixels)
Do you use flash? ('super' cookies)
etc.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
No, they're not. This is a protocol, and those only work when you don't have a large portion of participants abusing the protocol. IE still represents a very significant chunk of the browser population, and it's completely irresponsible for breaking the protocol. Industry initially agreed to play by the rules, but obviously if a major player is going to ignore the agreement, industry has no incentive to keep their word.
IF every single person opt-ed in, that is far more significant than everyone just leaving the default.
The only power that Do Not Track is as a means of making it clear that a user has a particular desire not to be tracked. An advertiser can chose to respect this choice, and will do so if a minority of motivated and technically inclined users make their desire clear - they don't lose out on much information, and they get substantial goodwill for it.
If Do Not Track is the default, it is no different than not having the bit at all - it's just a useless header that has no meaning. If an advertiser has a stance on tracking, they're not suddenly going to change it because browser vendors have stated they don't intend for their users to be tracked.
I understand all that, and that's what I'm against. I couldn't care less about a targeted ad for a remote control chopper. What i do care about is google knowing me better than i know myself. Yesterday there was a story about obama analytics's department using big data to find out how to change non obama voters into one and also get more campaign contributions than ever before (not very democratic when you know how to fool the majority). Your data is you, and with bigger and faster computers it can expose a lot of our weaknesses and manipulation possibilities.
Rocket Surgeon.