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.
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.
Oh I don't know about that, I have a feeling that DNT works fine, the problem is advertisers not respecting it more than anything as we all know. I have a feeling that the Chromium will implement something that makes DNT work...properly.
Funny enough, that whole privacy thing? People do. Enough so that various privacy commissioners do get involved like they do here in Canada and Germany, a few other places too. And in most cases they're not toothless either. Maybe that's just an American thing.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
Problems I've had with Google:
1.) I use PicasaWeb a lot. The URLs have always been obfuscated so that your user name and real name don't show up (it's not my Slashdot user name btw). I did a google search for my real name and found out that Google had indexed my REAL name with my photo albums which showed up under any google search for me. My real name probably comes from using the Google payment service or my email display name. No attempts to alter my Google account name will change my real name as displayed by Google.
2.) I had some emails on sensitive topic that I had a negligible internet footprint with otherwise. Shortly after, I was getting spammed with ads related to that issue through Google.
3.) I had a separate YouTube account from my Google account. Google offered to share the logins of the two which I did not seeing the problem. Immediately, I started seeing people from my address book showing up under my YouTube profile pages and I'm sure that eventually they'll start seeing mine.
4.) A minor issue, but part of my problem with Google TIA. I did a job search at home on my own time. While at work, I'm now spammed with career search links with my job search criteria.
Yeah, I can just delete my account and log out of Google mail, but these are the type of problems I have with them.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
So now the *good* guys will no longer track you. I don't get the logic.
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.
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, 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.