W3C Rejects Ad Industry's Do-Not-Track Proposal

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

W3C Rejects Ad Industry's Do-Not-Track Proposal

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday July 16, 2013 @08:27AM from the don't-come-'round-here-with-that-nonsense dept.

itwbennett writes "The W3C's Tracking Protection Working Group, which is mainly concerned with standardizing the mechanisms for server-side compliance with do-not-track requests, has rejected a proposal by from the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) that would have allowed advertisers to continue profiling users who had asked not to be tracked. The proposal would also have allowed them to 'retarget' ads to those users by showing ads relevant to one site or transaction on all subsequent sites they visited, according to the co-chairs of the W3C's Tracking Protection Working Group. The working group co-chairs also said that they planned to reject proposals similar to those made by the DAA."

162 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Do Not Track... by Synerg1y · 2013-07-16 08:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

The most useless checkbox in the history of browsers.
1. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  it says a lot for the people that bought into the DNT, they'll buy into just about anything. Uncheck your third party cookies in your browser and that should take care of them tracking you to other sites. I have a multi purpose firewall that kept finding tracking cookies until I cut out third party cookies now it doesn't find any.
2. Re:Do Not Track... by lart2150 · 2013-07-16 08:45 · Score: 2
  
  That only works if the ad requires javascipt a lot of them are just nested iframes. I've been very happy with the noscript iframe setting! most sites only use iframes now for ads and if I need it I can still enable it for just the domain that I need it for.
3. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:46 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  What do you think why Mozilla is going to remove exactly that option in the next release?
4. Re:Do Not Track... by NewWorldDan · 2013-07-16 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  Also, turn off 3rd party cookies. And run an ad blocker. That will substantially cut down on things. Until things eventually get integrated on the back end so that everything appears to be coming from the site that you're visiting. Like spam, it's an arms race. While spam is 99.8% solved, do not track will be much more challenging.
5. Re:Do Not Track... by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-16 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  The most useless checkbox in the history of browsers.
  I figured that the second I saw the phrase, "server-side."
  If it's not in the user's complete control, it's bullshit.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
6. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 09:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Request Policy complements noscript quite nicely, as it allows you to restrict access to third party domains. E.g., by default, requests from example.net to adserv.example.com are rejected.
7. Re:Do Not Track... by UltraZelda64 · 2013-07-16 09:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yet, Mozilla seems hell-bent on supporting this destined-to-be-ignored flag, while they remove everything--even Javascript settings--from the GUI. Pure irony.
  I do have the Do Not Track setting turned on, but only as a final "fuck off." My real lines of defense are disabled third-party cookies, NoScript, DoNotTrackMe and AdBlock Plus. Anyone who really trusts in that header is a nut.
8. Re:Do Not Track... by LordLimecat · 2013-07-16 09:06 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  It is now. Advertisers sound like they were willing to play along if W3C was up for some compromise. W3C tells them to go get stuffed, oh-and-will-you-please-respect-this-DNT-flag?
  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, any bets on whether the advertisers just take their ball, go home, and ignore any DNT requests?
9. Re:Do Not Track... by betterunixthanunix · 2013-07-16 09:07 · Score: 2
  
  DNT is not more challenging for technical reasons. Today's ad blockers remove almost all advertising. The real challenge is politics: the popular browser makers are all in bed with the advertisers.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
10. Re:Do Not Track... by realityimpaired · 2013-07-16 09:09 · Score: 2
  
  Never heard of flash cookies, eh?
11. Re:Do Not Track... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-16 09:09 · Score: 2
  
  it says a lot for the people that bought into the DNT, they'll buy into just about anything. Uncheck your third party cookies in your browser and that should take care of them tracking you to other sites. I have a multi purpose firewall that kept finding tracking cookies until I cut out third party cookies now it doesn't find any.
  Your measures are... outmoded.
  Sure, cookies make things markedly easier(since data persistence is what they do, in a sort of feeble, hacky way); but there are so many more bits of information available if you want to fingerprint a user. Even better, the ones that squirm the hardest against the easy methods tend to end up with the most unusual configurations.
12. Re:Do Not Track... by realityimpaired · 2013-07-16 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is, a certain amount of advertising is necessary to make ends meet. The content doesn't pay for itself, and the choices are either to put everything behind a paywall, or have advertising. The tracking/etc. is the ad industry's attempt to make advertising online more profitable: they have a *very* low clickthrough rate to begin with, and hope that by providing targetted advertising, they'll have a better return on investment, and can sell ad impressions for more money.
  At least in theory. In practice, what they're tracking on people is downright creepy. I do run ad blockers, and cookie cleaners, and multiple other add-ons to prevent my browser from leaving any permanent traces from session to session. It's not because I find advertising specifically intrusive, it's because I don't like the tracking.
13. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  There's no away around the browser makers working for advertisers, rather than their users, as long as we refuse to pay for browsers. If we pay for our browsers, the makers could aggressively block all advertising.
14. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  The most useless checkbox in the history of browsers.
  Nope. I'm pretty sure the 'I Agree' checkbox used on all sorts of sites is more useless because we don't agree but simply check it so we can get on with our transactions and our lives.
  Of course the second most uses checkbox on the internet is the one in surveys for 'I never watch internet porn', but that's a whole other thread.
15. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Funniest thing there... most of those tests say "no javascript" next to them. Those only provide the 1.75 bits of identifying information contained in the middle finger.
  The cookie test (cookies are enabled) only gives 0.44 bits of identifying information.
  My worst individual test result is a 1:395 user agent uniqueness with 8.6 bits of identifying information.
  The total comes to 12.6 bits of identifying information.
  I'm not terribly worried. 12.6 bits is somewhere in the range of 4096-8192 unique values. In a global population of 7 billion, that means that this particular Spartacus is one of (at best) 854,492 possible Spartacii. How good are they at a police lineup larger than the population of Alaska (estimated at 731,449 in 2012)? Sucks to be in marketing, I guess.
16. Re:Do Not Track... by sjames · 2013-07-16 09:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem there is that the advertisers forgot the old adage "you don't shit where you eat".
  If they had simply shown a few ads and made sure their servers were up to the task, few if any would have even bothered with ad-blockers. But no, They had to plaster the page with jumping singing dancing ads that pop up and pop under and triple (or worse) the page load time. Then to top it off, they didn't even bother to make sure the ads weren't drive-by viruses or illegal scams.
  Since all of that wasn't enough, they decided to also become internet stalkers.
  It's only natural that people came to consider most any ad they see on the web to be a probable scam and to run ad blockers to avoid the assault on their senses and more that a few infections as well.
  Then finally, when given a chance to restore some tiny shred of good will, they decided to ignore DNT.
17. Re:Do Not Track... by betterunixthanunix · 2013-07-16 09:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Advertisers sound like they were willing to play along if W3C was up for some compromise
  DNT is a compromise. If we were unwilling to compromise, we would build ad-blockers into browsers as a default, much like pop-up blocking ten years ago. It was because of people like you who would not stop whining about how important advertiser dollars are to keep the web alive that we even considered something like DNT. It was because advertisers promised that they really do respect our wishes, that ad blockers and legal restrictions on tracking are not needed, that DNT was ever considered by anyone.
  
  The advertisers showed their true colors. They never wanted a compromise, they just wanted a facade that allows them to pretend they respect us while continuing to do what they have done all along.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
18. Re: Do Not Track... by Bradmont · 2013-07-16 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Every time I've tried that thing, my signature has been unique. I'd love a Firefox extension to homogenise those data...
19. Re:Do Not Track... by sjames · 2013-07-16 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  You missed the part about advertisers already refusing to respect the existing DNT flag and only being willing to cooperate at all if uit didn't actually require them to change anything in response to the flag.
  W3C was right to tell them to get stuffed. Why let them do nothing and then pretend they somehow cooperated?
20. Re:Do Not Track... by pwizard2 · 2013-07-16 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Is that checkbox even hooked up to any code or is it just there for show?
  
  --
  "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
21. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? Both the browser and the pages it views should be 100% free because I'm an entitled baby.
22. Re:Do Not Track... by Lennie · 2013-07-16 10:21 · Score: 2
  
  Evercookie and profiling prove that anything technical can be used to track you on the web.
  If you don't want to be tracked, you'll need every browser in the world to be the same implementation (make, brand, code and version !) on the same screen on the same hardware and using Tor.
  Then, maybe, all browsers will look the same and they'll not be able to track you.
  So if you believe that, then there is only one solution, a way for the user to communicate to the site he/she doesn't want to be tracked and a law which forces companies to comply with the wishes of the users.
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
23. Re:Do Not Track... by Tom · 2013-07-16 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to reconsider your choice of ABP:
  http://www.mobilegeeks.de/adblock-plus-undercover-einblicke-in-ein-mafioeses-werbenetzwerk/
  Warning, long, investigative article in german.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
24. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  Ah but the point isn't to not be tracked, the point is politics... it's to reveal that trackers are brazen and that their talk of respect is just a lie. This allows Mozilla et al to marginalise them with clear evidence that they don't have users interests at heart (obvious but previously arguable) so this is politics that allows privacy advocates to greater sway over the W3C etc.
25. Re: Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  Every time I've tried that thing, my signature has been unique. I'd love a Firefox extension to homogenise those data...
  I'd rather have a plug-in or extension that fills tracking cookies with random garbage data.
26. Re: Do Not Track... by markjhood2003 · 2013-07-16 11:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Firegloves: http://fingerprint.pet-portal.eu/?menu=6
  
  A Firefox plugin to impede fingerprinting-based tracking while maintaining browsing experience. You may download and install the demo version of the extension by clicking the link below. This is not the final version; it is recommended to check this page regularly for updates. We welcome your remarks and suggestions - you may contact us using the Contact page.
  I've used it and it works pretty well for a demo.
27. Re:Do Not Track... by chihowa · 2013-07-16 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Warning, long, investigative article in german.
  Considering you're posting this to an English-language site frequented by people who have ADD and never RTFA, would you mind summing it up?
  ...oh look, a bird!
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
28. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  Bookmark about:config?filter=javascript.enabled and put it in your bookmarks toolbar labelled "JS". Now it's back in your GUI, problem solved.
29. Re:Do Not Track... by LordLimecat · 2013-07-16 12:44 · Score: 2
  
  It was because of people like you who would not stop whining about how important advertiser dollars are to keep the web alive that we even considered something like DNT.
  Ads are why so much of the internet is free. I dont have to like it, you dont have to like it, but ads are why youtube is making a profit and why its still alive / free (remember the days when it was wondered, "when will google shutter this money sink?"). Ads are the very reason for Slashdot's current existence, why search engines exist, etc.
  If adblockers were built into browsers by default, can you think of a single reason for yahoo and google to continue providing search engines? Or exist? Gee, there goes gmail, yahoo mail, yahoo news, youtube, hotmail, facebook, unpaid hulu, free news sites...
  Im sure the internet will outlast the fall of ad-supported sites, I just think there will be a lot less of the free crap that everyone loves so much.
30. Re:Do Not Track... by thegarbz · 2013-07-16 14:27 · Score: 2
  
  DNT is a compromise.
  
  No. DNT was a compromise. It was a feature with one purpose, to reflect the desire of the user not to be tracked. When a certain company with a certain shithouse browser decided to turn it on my default in a software update all for a bit of temporary marketing, DNT ceased reflecting the desire of the user. The ad companies were on board with it too as the likely people to click DNT were the ones unlikely to click ads to begin with.
  It wasn't until a large percentage of users unknowingly ended up with a browser that had it ticked by default that DNT stopped being about a privacy compromise and started being a direct attack and abuse of the feature.
  It's not advertisers showing their true colours, it's just human nature. No company is going to bend forward, grab their ankles and voluntarily get screwed all because of some unrelated idiot wanted to market their browser as the most consumer protective.
31. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  Also dump cookies, if not daily, at least every week. Every browser has option to delete cookies.
32. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  Bravo...well said. In the olden days, when we read newspapers and magazines, there were ads on nearly every page. The difference was they didn't jump around, flash on and off, and hover over the content you were trying to read. Even if they were like commercials on television, where every 10~12 minutes you were dished a couple of minutes of ads, they might not be so intrusive. The ad breaks on the telly at least gave you time to get up and grab a beer or go take a piss.
  Thank Goddess for Adblock and NoScript!
33. Re: Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 17:30 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, just like my cable TV. I pay a lot for that and there aren't any ads anywhere to be seen.
34. Re:Do Not Track... by Opportunist · 2013-07-16 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  Your browser doesn't allow me to block ads I do not want? rm browser. Next!
  It's not like yours is the only one. How many are there now? A billion?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
35. Re:Do Not Track... by Tom · 2013-07-16 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  Learn another language, it's useful. :-)
  One sentence summary: ABP sold out and is now owned by a shady german company that is deeply in bed with certain ad networks.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
36. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  Learn another language, it's useful.
  Do you seriously suggest the parent learn German so he/she can read that article? What if this person already knows 10 other languages besides German? Why not suggest Google's translate / Babelfish? Or just sum up the article?
  Hey parent... since we're telling you what to do... cure cancer, prove faster-than-light speed is possible, and find my socks (in that order). Hustle it up, my feet are cold!
37. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 00:26 · Score: 0
  
  When a certain company with a certain shithouse browser decided to turn it on my default ...
  So it was turned off by default ? Pray tell: How does that "reflect the desire of the user" ?
  Strangely enough (yeah, right :-) ) it does reflect the desire of the web-advertisement industry though ...
  Having said that: I personally have not yet seen such a "what is your DNT preference ?" question-box yet, but I could imagine that all those problems about that default setting would be something of the past when the "choose please" box would not preset a selection (two radio-buttons, neither of them selected ?), forcing the user to make a(n initial) choice.
  P.s.
  A "Slow down cowboy" with a last post more than 2 hours ago ?
38. Re:Do Not Track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  I agree advertising keeps a lot of sites free... but I don't think you understand that this "certain browser" isn't the only browser out there. If they decide to do it by default, and the users LIKE it, the users will continue using that browser. If I use ANY software that forces something on me I don't want, that software will lose my support. See how it works? If one browser blocks ads by default, and persists, it means the USERS wanted it. A browser without a user is extinction because ads are pointless when nobody sees them. A conundrum eh? Lets play your angle and all browsers block ads by default, then advertisers will find NEW ways to gain your eyes. They won't roll over _ever_. So, don't worry... you'll get your share of ads. ;)
39. Re:Do Not Track... by Tom · 2013-07-17 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  Do you seriously suggest the parent learn German so he/she can read that article?
  No, I suggest that knowing several languages is inherently useful.
  
  Why not suggest Google's translate / Babelfish?
  Because they often suck with content that's non-trivial.
  
  Or just sum up the article?
  I did. What's your problem?
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
40. Re:Do Not Track... by UltraZelda64 · 2013-07-17 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  I have actually started to try learning German (have been taking a break from it though), but there's no way I could read a whole article written in it. But if based on your summary you are talking about the automatically whitelisted sites by default... just uncheck the box! All it adds is one step upon first installation that can be performed in under ten seconds to disable the advertising whitelist, and it works just as it did before. No changes that I am aware of, and I have been using it for years.
41. Re:Do Not Track... by Tom · 2013-07-17 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  The real reason I switched is because I don't want to be a part of their extortion scheme.
  You see, you are not the victim in this scam, you are the weapon. With millions of users behind them, they can go to advertising networks and say "nice campaign you have there, would be a shame if something happened to it..."
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
42. Re:Do Not Track... by NotBorg · 2013-07-18 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget that they even suck outside of the browser. We had to have an act of congress (not a figurative reference, this actually had to be addressed with your tax money) to stop the hearing loss due to TV and radio ads being 10x louder than the show content.
  
  --
  I want this account deleted.
43. Re:Do Not Track... by UltraZelda64 · 2013-07-18 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well, once things noticeably start getting screwy, then I'll jump ship. But last time I checked, there wasn't even a Adblock Plus fork that was maintained to the level of the original and kept up-to-date. I figure with the extension being as popular as it is, once the time comes that it really is best to leave ABP behind, the developers of the forks will finally start to take the maintenance of their extensions seriously and ABP will finally have a worthy alternative. I doubt that that's changed in the last couple months since looking into alternatives.
44. Re:Do Not Track... by Tom · 2013-07-18 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Adblock Edge is a recent fork that seems well-maintained.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Advertising is butts by Reverand+Dave · 2013-07-16 08:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Marketing departments are a bunch of assholes.

--
I got here through a series of tubes
1. Re: Advertising is butts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  The thing about assholes is that everyone has one.
2. Re: Advertising is butts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  Which of course makes us all a bunch of assholes.
  So be carefull who you call an asshole asshole!
3. Re:Advertising is butts by LordLimecat · 2013-07-16 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  Stop consuming ad-supported content and roll your own website.
  Seriously, the entitlement mentality has gotten old.
4. Re:Advertising is butts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  i agree,
  now if only websites uses HTTP_AUTH the problem is solved, simple really
5. Re:Advertising is butts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  It's not about entitlement or about ad-supported content, it is about privacy and targeted advertising.
  On one side, the DAA wants to keep track of every site you've visited, every search you've done, just so they can squeak a few more cents (dollars) out of your wallet.
  On the other side, you have folks that actually give a damn about their privacy and don't want some no-face corporation digging through their digital trail to know all about what you might want to buy.
  Personally, I'd agree with the OP. Marketings sole purpose is to do the best moneygrab they are able to, and the latest trend is specific catering to the individual. Imagine an amazon.com salesman following you around in a day of shopping, taking meticulous notes about that can of Kroger black beans you picked up, how long you looked at it, what store you were in, what time, etc... then the next day he jumps in your face waving 3 boxes of different types of beans... as you are at the post office buying stamps.
  Advertising is okay, if I'm looking at a video game website, i'd expect to see some ads about various video games. It's a whole different story if all of those adds suddenly become the past n months of my browsing history. How much of that profiling have they done? how much do they really know? who are they sharing it with?
6. Re:Advertising is butts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 09:30 · Score: 0
  
  Weird because I'm still served ads and tracked even for subscription content I paid for. Go fuck yourself, you shit for brains.
7. Re:Advertising is butts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  You would think the net didn't exist before the marketing scumbags found it.
  You would be WRONG.
8. Re: Advertising is butts by sjames · 2013-07-16 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  And nobody wants to see it.
9. Re:Advertising is butts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  Funny, most of the content I consume and are tracked for is content from my peers (facebook, 9gag, slashdot, instagram). I agree that there is a degree of entitlement of the infrastructure but most of my peers don't know better and can't effectively do all the things the do on facebook on a different platform, have you ever tried to configure CalDAV? not the hardest thing to do right? well look it from the perspective of a regular user and facebook or gmail provide a service not easily replaceable. I'm not against ads, specially if they provide a useful service for free, but this has nothing to do with the privacy invasion.
10. Re:Advertising is butts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? Not him, but I have no problem with ads. I watch live TV, read some magazines, and listen to the radio. I get advertised to all the time. I'll even admit that it works. I will explicitly disable ad blocking on sites that I frequent, if they only host static ads from their own servers.
  I do not, however, support this shit. That gets blocked. Hell, privacy isn't even the most immediate concern. It simply isn't safe to browse without at least an adblocker and something to keep javascript and flash from compromising your system.
  Think of it this way: Any money you would have earned from ads? Consider it my consulting fee for having to go out of my way to secure myself and others from your industry's malicious behavior. I didn't agree to this. There was no privacy policy presented, no opt-in button. I don't even have to visit your page to be tracked by you. How is that acceptable? Fuck you.
  "Entitlement"? Horseshit.
  Content providers could easily put up a paywall. Or a trivial landing page to test for adblockers. But they don't. Instead, they continue providing a free-of-charge service because the traffic and good PR is still a net positive for business.
  And ask yourself this: Who exactly is in the "Digital Advertising Alliance"? You don't know because they're a shell organization for the real players to hide behind. They don't want their names to be associated with this disgusting shit, but they're too greedy to stop doing it.
11. Re:Advertising is butts by LordLimecat · 2013-07-16 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Then stop visiting those sites if you dont like the terms. This isnt rocket science. If you go to a supermarket and they insist on following you down the aisle making suggestions, the solution isnt to pass a law, its to stop going to that supermarket.
  Stop trying to burden society with more rules just because u cant be arsed to change your browsing habits, or because you think you are entitled to a private website's content.
12. Re:Advertising is butts by LordLimecat · 2013-07-16 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  The vast majority of the content consumed on the net today is adsupported, and would either be paywalled or non-existent without ads. Youtube? Hulu? Facebook? Slashdot? Their reasons for existence are to make money, and they do that mostly through ads (hulu also has a paywall section).
  All those news sites you read-- you think theyre there as a public service? For all the complaining that people do about NYTimes paywalls, they sure dont seem to want to even contemplate the possibility of ads; one wonders what is in this enterprise for the NYTimes if they cant paywall, and they cant advertise.
  Go build your own website, stop demanding other people make content for you on your terms.
13. Re:Advertising is butts by lgw · 2013-07-16 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  There's a real difference between blocking ads and blocking tracking. I have little interest in blocking non-animated ads, but I don't want to be tracked. Sadly, the easiest way to block the tracking is to block all ads.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
14. Re:Advertising is butts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 11:35 · Score: 0
  
  Then stop visiting those sites if you dont like the terms.
  You seem to have missed my point. You falsely claim that the only reason people could complain about ads and tracking is because they think they are "entitled" to content. The problem is that your claim is without any real merit.
  
  If you go to a supermarket and they insist on following you down the aisle making suggestions, the solution isnt to pass a law, its to stop going to that supermarket.
  Where did I ever suggest someone to pass a law? Also where is the W3C seeking to "pass a law"? Do you have an actual argument other than ad homs and strawmen?
  
  Stop trying to burden society with more rules just because u cant be arsed to change your browsing habits, or because you think you are entitled to a private website's content.
  So not wanting to be tracked and monitored is "burdening society"? Jesus fuck you're a retard.
15. Re:Advertising is butts by Lincolnshire+Poacher · 2013-07-16 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Go build your own website, stop demanding other people make content for you on your terms.
  I'm not demanding anything. My browser made a request and the web server responded with data; it's not obliged to do so.
16. Re:Advertising is butts by magic+maverick+ · 2013-07-16 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Frankly, if a site like /. can't survive without ads, then I don't care. Bye bye. There are loads of sites that have news without ads (check the national broadcasters for some examples). Facebook = do not want anyway, I'd love to see them die. Video sharing or steaming sites? Meh, fuck 'em. I don't use them anyway.
  I am confident that most of the sites that I visit regularly would still survive without advertising (though it maybe harder). Maybe they have to implement some sort of bonus scheme for people who subscribe (like /.), but advertising, it's a pox.
  Not that I see very much advertising anyway (NoScript + RequestPolicy, rather than deliberately blocking them). And the advertising I do see is mostly, well, irrelevant to my interests (e.g. for shit that is not available to me).
  
  --
  HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
17. Re:Advertising is butts by martin-boundary · 2013-07-16 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the solution is to pass a law. Supermarkets shouldn't be allowed to invade people's privacy just because they can, and people shouldn't have to be on the lookout for privacy breaking dirty tricks from every possible place they might visit.
  Let's ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. For every N people, there is 1 supermarket. It's more utilitarian to make it easy for N people to live their lives in peace and add a burden to 1 supermarket, than it is to make it easier for 1 supermarket to increase their profit and add a burden of vigilance to N people.
18. Re:Advertising is butts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  ... because you think you are entitled to a private website's content.
  On the other hand, website-owners(/advertisement-brokers) seem to think they are entiteled to being able to do/send anything they like with/to the users browser they like and claim all data they receive as their property should continue unchallenged, without having any responsibility ofcourse ?
  Your kind of website-owners/fanboys make me sick: thinking they can do anything they like, and a visitor should just "lie back and think of England".
  FYI: A visitor has got but a single choice: not to use the web at all (because he could find himself on "your ass is mine" website).
  And yes, that was what a few website-owners/advertisement-pushers (they where never clear about it, but I assume the latter) told me a few times.
  A website owner on the other hand has got many choices:
  # Including one to warn a (first time) vistor that the site is payed for by advertisements and every page will display them.
  In 20 years I've seen about ... a handfull of them. All others just smother you with the advertisements and other crap when you dare to step over the treshold.
  # Including the choice of advertisement-broker (which one pays most, effects to the user are largely unimportant)
  Including the type of advertisements (simple, animated GIF, pop-over/under, fly-by, must-acknoledge flash ones, etc. And lets not forget the sound-playing ones.)
  # Including accepting that his visitors, without even bothering to ask them, will be tracked by third parties.
  # Including that ....
  You get the picture.
  If you want to talk about "entitlement" than lets talk about a website-owner and how he demands that a visitor does/accepts everything he wants, so he can earn an income. That a visitor gets inconvenienced (understatement) by his demands is none of his concern. :-(
  Well, you're reaping what you've sown: You have not cared for us visitors for years upon years now, now we the vistors are have become uncaring for you.
  And don't tell us that comes as a surprise. The usage of advertisement-blocking products has increased steadily, and you've been asked around the table by gouverments as well as private initiative.
  You've pretty-much ignored it all of that, hoping that the problem (read: protesting web users) would just disappear. It didn't and doesn't.
19. Re:Advertising is butts by Reverand+Dave · 2013-07-17 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  How in the red-bleeding-fuck do you construe any kind of entitlement from my statement? Having worked with marketing departments I can say that in fact, they are more often than not a bunch of business major douche-bags with a very tenuous grasp of anything more than milking as much money from EVERY SINGLE PERSON THEY ENCOUNTER. I'm not saying anything about how i/we deserve anything. Fuck man get a grip.
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
adblock everything by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:31 · Score: 0

i can't wait till augmented reality so I can adblock in meatspace as well
imagine how peaceful and wonderful the world will be when you don't have to shut down your senses because someone is always trying to get in your face to sell you something
1. Re:adblock everything by Z00L00K · 2013-07-16 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  In some cases it should be permitted to shoot sellers that are getting too close. At least with a paintball gun.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Did the W3C say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:33 · Score: 0

"Fuck You" or the polite version of "Fuck You"?
1. Re:Did the W3C say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  It sounded more like the polite version of "Go suck a dick, and if you think any similar shenanigans are going to get by, keep on sucking it."
2. Re:Did the W3C say by CanHasDIY · 2013-07-16 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Twitter-style:
  We respectfully decline your request #gosuckleaninfectedbovinecock
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Trust by statusbar · 2013-07-16 08:33 · Score: 1

What is the problem here? Why couldn't the web browser just make sure that the cookies are passed via RFC3514 ( http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt ) compliant packets (with the E bit field set to FALSE) if the advertiser is trustable?

--
ipv6 is my vpn
1. Re:Trust by meerling · 2013-07-16 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't want the advertisers tracking you, then you don't want the advertisers tracking you.
2. Re:Trust by viperidaenz · 2013-07-16 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  RFC3514 needs updating for IPv6
3. Re:Trust by Raistlin77 · 2013-07-16 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  ...if the advertiser is trustable?
  Therein lies the problem.
  There is no such thing as a trustworthy advertiser. Their profit is directly tied to ad views and they have repeatedly demonstrated that they have no respect for privacy or one's desire to not be force-fed their crap.
4. Re:Trust by statusbar · 2013-07-16 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  :-(
  Yes, you are right.
  Until RFC3514 is updated for IPv6, we can't expect IPv6 to gain full acceptance simply because of the lack of the E bit.
  
  --
  ipv6 is my vpn
Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by TWiTfan · 2013-07-16 08:33 · Score: 1

I heard somewhere that Apache webservers now explicitly block "Do Not Track" requests from IE browsers. If you can't even count on your webservers to comply with DNT, what good are standards going to do?

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
1. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by TWiTfan · 2013-07-16 08:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Here is an article on it from Ars Technica, for anyone who thinks I'm making this shit up.
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
2. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by phizi0n · 2013-07-16 08:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Apache ignores DNT from versions of IE that have it enabled by default because it's supposed to be something that the user specifically enables, not a blanket "hey ad industry, completely ignore this because it's always on" option.
3. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by chuckinator · 2013-07-16 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Their changes are public, so you could have looked for yourself to find that change was reverted in October last year after only being alive in the upstream repositories for a whopping 2 months. Please don't repeat hearsay if you aren't going to verify it.
4. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  Microsoft are still jealous of Google that nobody wants to buy any ads from them.
  So starve the profits by enabling it by default, because that will work.
  Now look what mess they caused. All they have done is harm a feature that could have been useful for public computers, business, school and so on.
5. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-07-16 08:48 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Apache ignores DNT from versions of IE that have it enabled by default because it's supposed to be something that the user specifically enables, not a blanket "hey ad industry, completely ignore this because it's always on" option.
  No, Apache ignores DNT from IE 10 basically because the head of Apache works for Adobe, and Adobe doesn't like the idea of users not being tracked by default.
  FWIW I use Firefox on a Mac, and I disable third-party cookies and run Ad-Block Plus.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
6. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  Apache isn't the right place for something like that. The fact that the person that added that works for Adobe makes the whole thing suspect.
7. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by Barefoot+Monkey · 2013-07-16 09:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That happened last year, but it was only for a month. The patch to disregard DNT from IE was actually made by one of the authors of the DNT standard in response to IE catastrophically mutilating the standard, but they soon decided that messing with Apache wasn't appropriate and reverted the patch.
8. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't we just determine the ad industry doesn't care about DNT? If it's an option, they have no obligation to respect it. See panopticlick.eff.org for more information on how irrelevant the DNT header is. The head of apache is a prick for adding the IE check to the default apache configuration. Ad-Block plus is our only hope, but even this can be defeated by using simple javascript.
9. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by MtHuurne · 2013-07-16 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  From a user interface perspective, I think it makes sense to pick as the default the value that most users would like it to be at. And while I have no research to back this up, I'm assuming most users would prefer not to be tracked.
10. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 10:25 · Score: 0
  
  There are three settings for DNT, paraphrased as "unset", "yes, I don't mind being tracked", and "no, I don't want to be tracked". Having three options, so it has to explicitly set to a yes or no means that should a country write laws regarding consent for tracking this setting would be useful for countries requiring an explicit opt-in and those requiring an explicit opt-out. Without the force of law we are relying on the good-will of advertisers to honor this and they will want that the user explicitly opts-out of tracking, setting it to default on renders DNT worthless in the eyes of advertisers because they then don't know if the user doesn't want to be tracked or if the user is just going along with the defaults. And IMO I think most people don't really care (if polled you could get results either way depending on the wording of the questions).
11. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by QuasiSteve · 2013-07-16 12:15 · Score: 2
  
  IE catastrophically mutilating the standard
  Oh come on. The standard was that people would choose whether or not to enable 'do not track', without being specific about how that should be chosen.
  So Microsoft let users choose during installation, express settings, or custom settings, with the effects of the express settings (including the DNT setting) elaborated above:
  http://i.imgur.com/Wo8nG.png
  But then people cried foul and quickly suggested that they meant that people would have to specifically choose for that very specific option a 'yes or no' choice, rather than part of a package of options.
  But let's face it, if they still put that in the installation screen, on a separate page, asking users if they would like to be tracked by the advertising industry yes/no, they would still catch a lot of flak and they would quickly suggest that what they really meant was that DNT should be off by default, and the option to turn DNT on should never be advertised (hehe) and instead hidden deeply away in a configuration dialog and named something like "Disable tailor-made rich content that enhances your browsing experience." - and if enough people did manage to find their way there (due to people telling each other about it on social media), the advertising industry would quickly ignore it anyway since there's no legal backing behind it that would result in fines for such disregarding the users' choice.
  If anything, Microsoft should be applauded for this. Even if the intended effect may not have been to essentially kill DNT by exposing what a horribly useless feature it is, I don't think anybody sane is losing sleep over the fact that it did.
  Too bad the W3C hasn't fully caught on yet and is still at least considering a DNT thing. But good on them for rejecting the current proposal from the advertising industry, I guess.
12. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by bloodhawk · 2013-07-16 18:03 · Score: 1
  
  Actually MS followed the standard, but the people at the standard were pissed that MS implementation meant most people would be protected if it was honoured so like all fucked up bodies they changed the standard to screw over users.
13. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by Barefoot+Monkey · 2013-07-17 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  No, I was referring to the standard as specified 5 months before IE10 came to be
14. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by someSnarkyBastard · 2013-07-17 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Enter NoScript
15. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 14:03 · Score: 0
  
  They were actually completely instep with the standard up until it was changed just before the ie10 was released. The standards body despise how easy MS made it for users to choose the appropriate protection and instead wanted for users to have to find and enable the features themselves rather than be asked. It really was and is a fucked up standard designed to protect the minority and fuck over the general public.
Prevent all tracking by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:33 · Score: 0

If companies want to know stuff about me they may ask me, until they do that they'll have to settle for text adds or find themselves blocked.
Fuck Tracking! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:34 · Score: 0

Good fucking news.
but we hava a right to your money by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:35 · Score: 0

fucking parasites
Sigh by PPH · 2013-07-16 08:36 · Score: 1

Buy 'Do Not Track' Online.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Do Not Track... by evanh · 2013-07-16 08:38 · Score: 2

Yep. Turning off scripting is the only answer.
But wait there's more by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:42 · Score: 0

You could save 15% on your purchase of 'Do Not Track' if you use the promo code 'a44b30b36141bf0f462bbdef6f5000f17655216e' in the next 7 hours and 13 minutes!!!
Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by betterunixthanunix · 2013-07-16 08:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

DNT had exactly one use: to determine whether or not advertisers respect the wishes of people who do not want their browsing habits tracked. The verdict is in, and to nobody's surprise advertisers have no respect for anyone. Now we know that we are justified in using ad-blocking plugins and building browsers that block ads by default.

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by poetmatt · 2013-07-16 08:54 · Score: 2
  
  the fact that people ever thought for a second that they shouldn't have the right to see what they're looking for on a website and not ads or other shit is the problem. It's like when people defend websites that threaten others, saying their ad revenue is the only way they survive when other options exist. Screw ads. Allow em when *you* choose because you're okay with it, not just because you dare to go to websites.
  I encourage people to always adblock on techreport, because they threaten to nuke user accounts that talk about using adblocking. That's not the right approach.
2. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by LordLimecat · 2013-07-16 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that people want content, they dont want to pay for it, and they also dont want advertising. Unfortunately, you cant have all 3.
  
  to determine whether or not advertisers respect the wishes of people who do not want their browsing habits tracked. The verdict is in, and to nobody's surprise advertisers have no respect for anyone.
  And shopkeepers have no respect for people who want goods without paying. If you dont want the advertising, dont consume content from an ad-supported site. Make your own webpage, social network, whatever-- thats a lot of the strength of the internet.
3. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by UltraZelda64 · 2013-07-16 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, now if only all the browsers would remove this extra, completely useless code and maybe build in something that *really* works. Too bad the major ones would never have the balls to go the extra mile by introducing *real* anti-tracking (and anti-advertisement in general) features.
4. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by tlhIngan · 2013-07-16 09:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  DNT had exactly one use: to determine whether or not advertisers respect the wishes of people who do not want their browsing habits tracked. The verdict is in, and to nobody's surprise advertisers have no respect for anyone. Now we know that we are justified in using ad-blocking plugins and building browsers that block ads by default.
  Careful, advertisers like Google have paid Adblock Plus to whitelist their ads. Sure it's google ads today, but Google owns the vast majority of online ad networks and commands practically all the online ad markets, and if they're paying off the ad blockers to whitelist...
  And of course, Google is naturally tracking you. Especially whitelisted.
  
  I encourage people to always adblock on techreport, because they threaten to nuke user accounts that talk about using adblocking. That's not the right approach.
  It depends. Sites depend on ads to pay for content and hosting, and many with "premium" options do not allow talk of ad blockers as well. Even reputable ones - like Ars Technica. Even the merest hint of ad blocking without whitelisting the site in question is out. I got banned for mentioning noscript and didn't even mention blocking the site's ads, just it happened to block a good chunk of ads.
  Of course, one side effect of this is sites get desperate for money and they end up getting sold and re-sold to other companies. It's only a matter of time before pretty much online ads disappear as we know them because websites are all purchased up and owned by a few media conglomerates who bought them for the user information and all that.
  Of course, the little guy with a blog who wants to make a couple of bucks won't be able to attract any advertisers because they all went to the big guys with their massive data pools from buying up websites left and right.
5. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by betterunixthanunix · 2013-07-16 09:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You are acting like tracking and advertising are inseparable. They are not, you can advertise without tracking people and you can make money doing so. I do not want to be tracked, and the only technical solution at this point is to block advertisements -- because even loading a static image from an advertiser will be used as a data point to track me.
  
  If a website wants me to view its ads, it should refuse the business of advertisers that create privacy-invading ads. If websites were standing up for their users they would not be at risk of becoming collateral damage in this fight.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
6. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by betterunixthanunix · 2013-07-16 09:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Careful, advertisers like Google have paid Adblock Plus to whitelist their ads
  Sure, but ABP has an easy-to-find checkbox to enable/disable whitelisted ads. There are also many other ad blockers out there that can be used if ABP ever stops working effectively (and being easy to configure).
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
7. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by MtHuurne · 2013-07-16 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that it's inconsistent to complain about ads on unpaid content. However, advertising does not require tracking. The page that the ad is served on is in many cases already sufficient context to deliver a relevant ad.
8. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by LordLimecat · 2013-07-16 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Tracking is done by the webmaster. The technical solution is to use a website whose webmaster isnt using tracking. Google Analytics doesnt accidentally find itself on a website; its placed there intentionally.
9. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by foniksonik · 2013-07-16 10:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Analytics doesn't track you across websites. It really does very little beyond what server logs provide. The one advantage is a cookie that says you are a repeat visitor. Also it is a same domain cookie so no other sites can access it. Google does have access to the data but its not attached to a unique record so they can't build an individual profile for you.
  The same is true for Coremetrics and Omniture.
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
10. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by foniksonik · 2013-07-16 10:56 · Score: 2
  
  Retargeting is 5x more effective than context based ad targeting.
  Here's why.
  Imagine that you've just been shopping around for a new pair of shoes. You like Nike so you went to Nike.com. They set a remarketing cookie. You want to price compare and find more reviews, so off you go to Amazon. Then you get distracted by a book you want and forget about shoes.
  The next day you hop online and go to a tech blog. They serve ads to pay the bills. Now the article you are reading has nothing to do with shoes ( its about online privacy and tracking tags) but look right there, an ad for Nike. Your memory kicks in and you recall shopping for shoes. You've already price compared and decided you're okay with Nikes prices and the reviews were good, so all that's left is to buy (that's internal dialogue). The Nike ad is right they so you click and then buy.
  Was the retargeted ad helpful to you? Some would say yes. Was it invasive? Maybe. Did you buy a pair of shoes from the company that used retargeted ads, absolutely.
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
11. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by chihowa · 2013-07-16 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Does your scenario ever actually happen, though? I've been on the internet long enough to know that you just don't click on ads. If you want Nike shoes, you go directly to to nike.com or your favorite online shoe store.
  Clicking on internet ads is like clicking links in spam email. There's absolutely no reason to trust that you'll end up where you want to go.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
12. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think you know how Analytics works. It tells Google a LOT more than the server logs alone (like where you clicked, how long you spent on the page, your exit method, etc.). If you don't think that Google is using Analytics to track everyone's browsing habits across sites then I've got a bridge to sell you.
  Remember, Analytics is "free" to put on your website, but Google's not doing it out of the goodness of their heart.
  Oh, and if you think GA is tracking you anonymously, think again. If you use Gmail, Google Plus or any other Google account, they pretty much know who you are.
13. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by geminidomino · 2013-07-16 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  Careful, advertisers like Google have paid Adblock Plus to whitelist their ads. Sure it's google ads today, but Google owns the vast majority of online ad networks and commands practically all the online ad markets, and if they're paying off the ad blockers to whitelist...
  Then those ad blockers get forked into non-crippled versions.
  I will admit that I was gobsmacked when I got that window after updating ABP to the first version with that garbage, though.
14. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Altrag · 2013-07-16 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  Name one public media distribution system that isn't plastered with ads? People don't assume they have a right to ad-free viewing because the don't have that right. If you don't like the ads on a site you have the right to not visit that site and (so far) you have the freedom (not right) to attempt to block the ad.
  But you have absolutely no right to tell the site owner that they aren't allowed to put an ad up on their own site any more than you can tell the cable company or radio station that they aren't allowed to include ads in their programming.
15. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Zynder · 2013-07-16 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  You kind of answered your own question. You saw the Nike ad, but since you know better than to click it, you just went to Nike.com. They still got your business. If it had been an ad for Adidas, again, you know better than to click it, but you may just stroll on over to the Adidas site. This kind of ad response is hard to measure since you can't really count the clicks (since you know better), but as the advertiser you want to know if your campaign was successful so they have resorted to this kind of tracking that will correlate that you were just on a page that served a Nike ad, didn't click it but then surfed over to Nike.com. The end result is the same. Does foniksonik's specific scenario happen? Probably. You might know better but you seriously can't think of any tech support issues with grandma or some non-savvy person that you have run across over the years? Businesses exist to make money. If spamming the shit out of the internet didn't work, then they wouldn't waste profit on it. So someone has to be clicking those ads. With all of that said, advertisers need to die in a fire. I can't tell which are worse: politicians, marketers, or lawyers.
16. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by flimflammer · 2013-07-16 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I could mod you higher than 5. This was exactly my thoughts on the whole DNT fiasco. I knew advertisers would never respect a totally optional flag no matter how evil it made them look in the process. Having confirmation of such creates no remorse when you then take every step you can to block out advertisers.
  I really did want to believe in the advertising model for free content on the internet. I stuck up for sites that needed the revenue to continue operating. But advertisers are just too corrupt to be trusted these days. We need to find another model, if tracking is the only way for advertisers to move forward.
17. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by flimflammer · 2013-07-16 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's startling how much ad banners are actually clicked. I don't remember how long ago, but a bunch of data was revealed on the kind of numbers behind people clicking ads, and it was staggering. It wouldn't be so prevalent if it wasn't actually helpful. Even if you go directly to Nike.com in his example, the ad still served its purpose, and there may even still be ad revenue as a result of referrer information leading from a site with the ad to nike's website.
  The tech savvy may not think to click ads for a variety of reasons, but regular computer users just using it for email and light browsing do not know the difference unless they have one of us constantly reminding them the many commandments of safe internet use.
18. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Opportunist · 2013-07-16 17:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That is exactly the point.
  If advertisers DID heed the DNT request and not track those who see their ads, fewer people would even bother to reach for ad blockers. But the greed was stronger. Why only benefit from people seeing your ads when you can as well sell their profile while you're at it?
  And now the greedy call those defending against their greed greedy. That's really rich.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
19. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by fido_dogstoyevsky · 2013-07-16 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  Name one public media distribution system that isn't plastered with ads? .....
  Aunty ABC (radio and TV)?
  The Beeb (wireless and television)?
  
  --
  It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
20. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 18:29 · Score: 0
  
  > The problem is that people want content, they dont want to pay for it, and they also dont want advertising
  Such a load of bull. People want to decide *themselves* how much of each they want. So-called "industry" better adapt or die. Free market 101.
21. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 20:38 · Score: 0
  
  Google does have access to the data but its not attached to a unique record
  It has been long ago that I believed anyone on its blue eyes. In other words: How do you know ?
  And please, don't answer us by telling "because Google told me so" .... :-)
  Bottom line: You have no shred of evidence that they don't. But as I know that Google does not ask me to pay them they must be getting money from somewhere.
  And that puts them in range of internet companies which uses advertisements and what not more to earn some income. Profiling and selling the demographics is certainly a part of that.
  Yes, I do not have proof for that either. But when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it most likely is a duck.
22. Re: Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  "you have the freedom (not right) to attempt to block the ad."
  Wrong! On my computer I have all rights to do whatever I want, including the blocking of parts of content, or rendering it pink, if I so please. I paid for my computer and I paid for my download. If you don't like it, you can exercise your own right and block my computer from accessing of your web sites. But you don't have rights over my private property.
23. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Lennie · 2013-07-16 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  They have a profile about you even without gmail, google plus, google account.
  They don't care about your name, they want to make profile they can can target for advertising.
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
24. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Richard_at_work · 2013-07-17 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit - ad blockers were popular well before tracking became the issue, most people wanted to block ads because they didn't want to see them, not because they gave a fuck about being tracked or not. The tracking issue has only become widely followed in the past couple of years.
25. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  I don't object to a website showing me adds. I don't object to a website tracking my movement across that website. I do object, strongly, against my browsing habits being tracked across the entire internet. If the only way to stop the tracking is to suppress the adds, then so be it.
26. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by poetmatt · 2013-07-17 01:53 · Score: 2
  
  Who said I'm telling them they can't put up an ad?
  I'm just refusing to look at it.
  Putting up an ad and relying on nothing else is a sign of laziness/failed business.
27. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Meeni · 2013-07-17 02:41 · Score: 2
  
  Its one thing to put adds in your "private" space. I dislike adds and run adblockers at all time anyway, but I certainly respect that one may do what he wants on -his- website.
  Now, we are talking about people profiling YOU. They stalk you wherever you go, take notes of all the things you do, and alter your experience of the internet based on arbitrary criterion. There is a real danger, when some massive "administration" (yeah, I know, the state is the -only- possible evil, large corporations that lock a market are never to blame because private sector is always right) takes arbitrary decisions that impact my life.
  Case in point, I was watching videos of "crocodile" addicts on youtube, out of curiosity. For 6 weeks, I had adds about withdrawal clinics plastered all around my device. How do I explain to casual bystanders that it looks like some algorithm has profiled me as a drug addict ? What if it suddenly decide to target me for a massive porn campaign based on some bogus statistical behavior, how do I explain that to my wife ? What if they use the collected stuff to change my insurance rate, deny me employment, or discriminate in another way ? What I do on the internet is my own private business. I do not want it to be public, I do not want it to be -private- but the property of somebody else that will sell my "profile" to all evil-doers that just want to molest me so that they can juice another quarter out of me.
  So yeah, they have the right to show their adds on their website. They don't have the right to stalk me wherever I go on the internet.
28. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by foniksonik · 2013-07-18 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  Look at your net traffic in a dev console. Google uses beacons. They are gifs and both start with utm_. Look at those request/response entries. You'll see exactly what is and is not sent. They do not track mouse events unless the website specifically is set up to do so and they are limited to a few tens of events per site, not enough for full coverage.
  There are tools that track every input. Some are sampled like Clicktale. They record up to 10% of all sessions so you could be caught there but they also have pretty strict policies about that data. Some are 100% session recorders using packet sniffers plus JavaScript, like IBM Tealeaf. Neither is Free and cost buckets of money for popular websites (100k+ per year). Neither is widespread. Tealeaf stores all data for a limited time and is not centrally managed by IBM (it's hosted as an appliance by the website operator).
  The real trackers are the ad networks, affiliate groups and social networks. They use iframes to share first party info with 3rd party domains so it can be accessed cross domain. Facebook is really bad as they track you on any site with a like button if you've ever logged in to FB (you don't have to be logged in you just have to have their cookie set).
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
29. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Opportunist · 2013-07-18 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Of course. Ad blockers have been around... well, I guess at the very least since the advent of full-size, flashing ads that blare obnoxious "PAY ATTENTION TO ME!" noise from every speaker attached.
  The difference is magnitude. And that, in turn, depends on how much the average user is willing to put up with vs. the ease or difficulty to get rid of it. Being tracked is just another brick in that wall. You might notice that ad blocking didn't sweep across the nation over night when yesterday everyone and their dog was watching ads while today, everyone is blocking them. Rather, you'll notice that it is a gradual development. Every time ads became more obnoxious, more intrusive, another batch of people went out of their way to get rid of them.
  Tracking just adds another level of reasons for people to install blockers.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
lets make it easy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 08:47 · Score: 0

1. Do not track
2, Do not collect
3 Do not target.
4, do not try and peddle your shit on bandwidth I pay for - fucking pay for your own.
5) do not profit
6) do humanity a favour and kill yourselves scum
Lack of Trust by betterunixthanunix · 2013-07-16 08:48 · Score: 1

"Do Not Track" is pretty clear. It means "do not track," without exceptions, without room for debate.

This fiasco has basically proved what everyone knew from the beginning, which is that advertisers do not give a damn about people who do not want to be tracked. Luckily, we have a technical solution to the problem: ad blockers. Much like spam filters and pop-up blockers, ad blockers are the solution to advertisers who have no respect and who cannot be trusted.

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Lack of Trust by LordLimecat · 2013-07-16 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  Spam and website ads are basically polar opposites.
  SPAM is unsolicited email sent on your dollar, consuming your resources.
  Ads are implicitly requested when you visit an ad-supported site, and are sent to pay for the resources YOU consume by visiting the site.
  People making a big deal about this should perhaps rethink why they are entitled to someone else's work (the website) without respecting their terms (the ads).
2. Re:Lack of Trust by betterunixthanunix · 2013-07-16 09:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  SPAM is unsolicited email sent on your dollar, consuming your resources.
  When my CPU is spinning because of your Javascript-super-fancy-tracks-all-the-things advertisement, you are consuming my resources. When I have to download a megabyte of Javascript/Flash/whatever to see your ads, you are consuming my resources. When I have to spend time trying to navigate around annoying hover ads, you are consuming my resources.
  
  At least when I receive spam, I know the spammer has no idea who I am or whether or not I opened their message. Website advertisers try hard to track everything, even when you are very clearly trying to stop them; that is what DNT has demonstrated.
  
  Ads are implicitly requested when you visit an ad-supported site
  No, the page is what is requested. My browser is not obligated to do anything at all with the webpage your server sends it. There is no implicit request; you explicitly asked my browser to request ads from the advertisers you choose to do business with.
  
  People making a big deal about this should perhaps rethink why they are entitled to someone else's work (the website) without respecting their terms (the ads).
  You put your work on the open web. You did not put it behind a paywall. You did not force me to view your ads before seeing your page.
  
  Nobody wrote an ad blocker because they were angry about textual ads or banner ads. Ad blockers exists because the advertisers have no respect for anyone's desire to not be tracked, to not have hover ads, pop-ups, pop-unders, Flash, Java, and other adware annoyances. Advertisers have shot themselves in the foot with their own greed, and if your website is not saying, "No, I do not want you to piss off my users with these antics" then your website is part of the problem.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
3. Re:Lack of Trust by LordLimecat · 2013-07-16 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  A webpage consists of multiple resources, often spread over multiple servers and delivered by multiple servers.
  
  My browser is not obligated to do anything at all with the webpage your server sends it.
  
  Thats true; you can filter the data with a large number of extensions, to strip out ads.
  
  There is no implicit request;
  
  Youre right-- its an explicit request. If you were to fire up wireshark, you would see zero requests coming from the website, and many coming from your machine to various web addresses-- including advertisers. That you dont understand the ramifications of your GET request isnt really relevant; thats how browsers work. If you want to write your own webbrowser that doesnt load third-party assets, go ahead, but be prepared for a lot of broken websites.
  
  You put your work on the open web. You did not put it behind a paywall. You did not force me to view your ads before seeing your page.
  I cant believe you are arguing this. There is no "open web" agreement; each website is its own dictatorship (if you've ever been on a forum you know this). Each site has its own terms, and on ad-supported sites the terms are advertising.
  You seem to fundamentally not understand what the internet is-- its not some organization you join and have to pay dues for. Its a networked group of servers with their own rules and terms, and if you dont like the terms offered by one particular site thats no skin off of the operators back; you can hook your own server up and code your own site. Otherwise, stop pretending you get to mandate terms on work published on the internet, because you cant. And if you could, the end result would just be paywalls everywhere, or people deciding that its not worth their time creating content for no return.
4. Re:Lack of Trust by sjames · 2013-07-16 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  So if I run an ad-blocker so my browser doesn't request the ads, all is good?
  I'm fine with actual ads on a website. It's the animated crap, the humongo flash programs and the bad attempts to give me a virus by tricking me into thinking I already have one, and burning up CPU cycles like it's a contest to see who can use the most that must go.
  In return for website owners not getting too bent out of shape about that, I don't hold them responsible for the content of the ads that display on their site with their full consent.
5. Re:Lack of Trust by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  The matter of fact is that it doesn't really matter what the terms say since all the data is delivered anyway, I can do absolutely anything i want with that data if I am willing to face the consequences.
  I enjoy breaking websites with my addons because it teaches me things and prevents me from pulling data from sources I didn't request it from. Just because I'm giving YOU a ride DOES NOT MEAN that I HAVE to give a ride to the 37 different strangers you bring along. With that being the case, I can chose to not let them ride by locking them out.
  People blocking ads is NOT going to kill the internet. You are also a fool if you think people will stop creating just because there's no money in it for them.
6. Re:Lack of Trust by Mr.+Slippery · 2013-07-16 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Ads are implicitly requested when you visit an ad-supported site...
  No, they're not. Ads are noise, unwanted data that I have to filter out..
  
  ...and are sent to pay for the resources YOU consume by visiting the site.
  Advertisers already got their money from me when they added the cost of marketing to their products. I've already paid. The relationship between the advertiser, the publisher, and the noise the advertiser wants to insert into the signal, is not my problem.
  The real problem is that making money by memetic pollution is a fundamentally broken model. I'm no more obligated to consume the memetic pollution of advertizing than I am obligated to consume the air or water pollution of industrial production. That's not "entitlement".
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
7. Re:Lack of Trust by WuphonsReach · 2013-07-16 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  People making a big deal about this should perhaps rethink why they are entitled to someone else's work (the website) without respecting their terms (the ads).
  
  We run ad-blockers (usually AdBlock Plus, but NoScript+FlashBlock are often required) because too many ad networks serve up malware. It's simple self-preservation at this point.
  
  --
  Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Marketing division by ArcadeMan · 2013-07-16 08:49 · Score: 1

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes," with a footnote to the effect that the editors would welcome applications from anyone interested in taking over the post of robotics correspondent.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
So they rejected the proposal by fustakrakich · 2013-07-16 08:58 · Score: 1

What effect will this have on the problem? Are the advertisers gonna say, "Oh, gee, I guess we better close up shop and go home"? I think we need to take this further and file claims against advertisers that consume our limited bandwidth. 20 million complaints in small claims court might just work. Cell phone spammers should suffer the same in places where people pay to receive calls.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Just block ads by betterunixthanunix · 2013-07-16 09:00 · Score: 1

Why spend the effort on the courts? Ad blockers take under a minute to install.

--
Palm trees and 8
1. Re:Just block ads by fustakrakich · 2013-07-16 09:06 · Score: 2
  
  Why spend the effort on the courts?
  I could make some money. In fact if you send me 20 dollars and a stamped envelope, I'll send you a brochure on how you too can become a millionaire with this amazing opportunity... all from your home office.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
all advertising is spam by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 09:19 · Score: 0

it is all unwanted and all needs to cease
commercial speech is not "free speech"
your right to sell something ends at my eardrums and my eyeballs, if you have violated those boundaries to attempt to implant "brand awareness" then you have assaulted me
Does the NSA respect it ? by Alain+Williams · 2013-07-16 09:31 · Score: 3, Funny

If the NSA were to respect the DNT header then I would stop fretting about a lot of the rest of this week's news :-)
DoNotTrackMe extension by Burz · 2013-07-16 09:31 · Score: 2

https://www.abine.com/dntdetail.php
This is the anti-tracking extension that does NOT have a partnership with the ad industry.
1. Re:DoNotTrackMe extension by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 00:18 · Score: 0
  
  This is the anti-tracking extension that does NOT have a partnership with the ad industry.
  ... yet
Almost as useful as... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 10:31 · Score: 0

DNT is only marginally less useful than the evil bit. Do they seriously think any advertisement company is going to respect this setting?
1. Re:Almost as useful as... by Todd+Knarr · 2013-07-16 11:17 · Score: 2
  
  It's not so much a question of the companies respecting it as that they're on notice about it. It's like a no-trespassing sign on a fence. It may be easy to hop over the fence, and it doesn't actually stop anyone who intends to trespass. They can't, however, claim they didn't realize they were trespassing if they have to climb over a fence that at every point along it would've had at least one no-trespassing sign visible to them. That makes it much easier to deal with them when they get caught trespassing. That doesn't mean much for an individual, but when a large security breach occurs and information they collected gets stolen it means a lot if there's a class-action suit filed. Or if the breach affects European users who can invoke more stringent laws.
We had a good deal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 11:50 · Score: 1

I think we had a pretty decent deal during the era of broadcast TV, newspapers, and magazines. I think we'll have a good deal again some day; but right now it's a war.
Casualty: historic ads, a casualty of 3rd party servers which means the ad isn't part of the file making up the site.
Casualty: uninterrupted TV--the dancing dinosaurs that interrupt regular programming are a direct result of advertisers trying to find a way around TiVo. Ditto for banner crawls during newscasts.
Casualty: Movies free of product placement. Probably a casualty of TiVo also
Casualty: Privacy, duh. Yahoo, Google, etc. all scanning our e-mails to supposedly make things more attractive to advertisers.
There's probably more. What it boils down to is that you had two parties that never really liked eachother. Advertisers and consumers. They reached a sort of uneasy truce. The introduction of new technology led to an arms race. Now it sucks. Most of us are aware of it sucking on the consumer side; but I bet it sucks on the advertiser side too.
I don't know what the new deal will be; but it will come about eventually...
1. Re:We had a good deal by CycleMan · 2013-07-16 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  Casualty: uninterrupted TV--the dancing dinosaurs that interrupt regular programming are a direct result of advertisers trying to find a way around TiVo. Ditto for banner crawls during newscasts.
  Casualty: Movies free of product placement. Probably a casualty of TiVo also
  Don't blame TiVo. Product placement was visible in movies in the 1970s, long before TiVo. Watched "Ice Castles" the other night and was surprised at the number of blatant Coca-Cola placements throughout. And the alien E.T. eats Reese's Pieces because Mars Inc (M&Ms) turned down the opportunity.
So let me get this straight by Arancaytar · 2013-07-16 15:24 · Score: 1

They put forward a proposal that would specifically let them track people who specifically said they don't want to be tracked.
I hope the W3C told them to fuck off in so many words.
So let me get this straight... by rnturn · 2013-07-16 17:06 · Score: 1

The advertisers actually came up with a proposal that said something like ``Well, what we'd like to do is that when the browser user chooses to not be tracked, we'll track them anyway. Would you folks find that acceptable?" Incredible.

--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Google does even more by Zynder · 2013-07-16 17:29 · Score: 1

Google is Evil! For us Droid users, the Goog pulled all of our adblocking apps from the Play Store! Most of them require a user to be rooted so since you can sideload because of that, the blockers can now be found at the OSS App Store F-Droid!
Don't even bother, advertisers by denelson83 · 2013-07-16 17:50 · Score: 1

Advertisements of any kind are illegal on my screen. Adblock has really made it a pleasure to browse the Web again.
1. Re:Don't even bother, advertisers by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-16 23:58 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. I find some sites (like wired.com) impossible to read without it.
@phonicsonic - Re:Not useless [etc] by nukenerd · 2013-07-17 01:02 · Score: 1

Phonicsonic wrote :-

Retargeting is 5x more effective than context based ad targeting.
Citation?

Here's why. Imagine that you've just been shopping around for a new pair of shoes. ...Then you get distracted The next day you ... go to a tech blog. ... but look right there, an ad for Nike. Your memory kicks in and you recall shopping for shoes.
How the hell do you forget that you are looking for new shoes? You get reminded every time you put your old ones on.

The Nike ad is right they [sic] so you click and then buy. Was the retargeted ad helpful to you? Some would say yes. Was it invasive? Maybe. Did you buy a pair of shoes from the company that used retargeted ads, absolutely.
No I wouldn't buy the Nikes, because an advert popping up in the middle of a tech blog will piss me off, and if it were not intrusive I would not even notice it on an unrelated site.
What you people ignore is the piss-off factor. There may be some people who will buy something because it took over their screen, but others (like me) will be so annoyed that it is the last thing they will buy. As you suggest, I make buying decisions based on research; eg if I want a camera I will base my choice on as many independent camera reviews as possible. Then I will search for camera sellers' websites to compare prices; then I buy. Adverts popping up on irrelevant websites, billboards or TV will merely annoy me and might put me off entirely.
This does a BETTER job than AdBlock by far by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 02:17 · Score: 0

For those of you that run Microsoft Windows 32 or 64 bit? An automated hosts file creation & mgt. program:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
* And it's NOT "bought-in/souled-out" (misspelling intentional on the latter) like Ghostery (advertiser owned/fox guarding your henhouse) or AdBlock (lobbyist bribed to lesser efficacy by default)... and it does the same job, and FAR more!
The "more" being:
---
1.) More security (blocking know spammers/trackers/phishers + maliciously coded sites or redirects, and sites known to serve malware etc.)
2.) Speed (blocking adbanners + hardcoded favorite sites @ the top of it beating DNS indexes up to ~3++ million line entries using 20 of them)
3.) Reliability (vs. redirect poisoned or downed DNS servers - especially considering 99% of the DNS servers, especially @ the ISP level, are unpatched vs. the Kaminsky flaw)
4.) Anonymity to an extent (DNS request logs/DNSBL)).
---
* See the entire list of what it does for you, which is a LOT MORE than AdBlock/Ghostery & the like in the link above...
APK
P.S.=> Using those crippled or advertiser owned (fox guarding the henhouse) addons? You're also "layered-in" over slower Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers, slowing them down even more using addons (fact, try it in FireFox putting in a lot of addons, you'll see) - whereas my app operates in Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode as a filter for the TCP/IP stack, written in C, which is also far faster than those tools are written in slower languages like Perl, Javascript, etc. & operates RIGHT @ OS + IP stack startup (making browser addons, redundant)... apk
Trusting adblock? Ok: by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 02:33 · Score: 0

9 days ago, I submitted this. Wasn't only REJECTED but also REMOVED from submissions -> http://slashdot.org/submission/2783319/adblock-getting-paid-by-google-to-allow-their-ads
(Which indicates suppression of VALID information on /.)
Here's something a LOT better on many fronts: For those of you that run Microsoft Windows 32 or 64 bit? An automated hosts file creation & mgt. program:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
* It's NOT "bought-in/souled-out" (misspelling intentional on the latter) like Ghostery (advertiser owned/fox guarding your henhouse) or AdBlock (lobbyist bribed to lesser efficacy by default)... and it does the same job, and FAR more!
The "more" being:
---
1.) More security (blocking know spammers/trackers/phishers + maliciously coded sites or redirects, and sites known to serve malware etc.)
2.) Speed (blocking adbanners + hardcoded favorite sites @ the top of it beating DNS indexes up to ~3++ million line entries using 20 of them)
3.) Reliability (vs. redirect poisoned or downed DNS servers - especially considering 99% of the DNS servers, especially @ the ISP level, are unpatched vs. the Kaminsky flaw)
4.) Anonymity to an extent (DNS request logs/DNSBL)).
---
* See the entire list of what it does for you, which is a LOT MORE than AdBlock/Ghostery & the like in the link above...
APK
P.S.=> Using those crippled or advertiser owned (fox guarding the henhouse) addons? You're also "layered-in" over slower Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers, slowing them down even more using addons (fact, try it in FireFox putting in a lot of addons, you'll see) - whereas my app operates in Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode as a filter for the TCP/IP stack, written in C, which is also far faster than those tools are written in slower languages like Perl, Javascript, etc. & operates RIGHT @ OS + IP stack startup (making browser addons, redundant)... apk
Submitted it here 9 days ago: Result? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 02:52 · Score: 0

IT WASN'T ONLY REJECTED: It was flat out REMOVED from submissions -> http://slashdot.org/submission/2783319/adblock-getting-paid-by-google-to-allow-their-ads
(Makes me laugh as it indicates suppression of VALID information on /.)
Here's something a LOT better on many fronts:
For those of you that run Microsoft Windows 32 or 64 bit? An automated hosts file creation & mgt. program:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
* And it's NOT "bought-in/souled-out" (misspelling intentional on the latter) like Ghostery (advertiser owned/fox guarding your henhouse) or AdBlock (lobbyist bribed to lesser efficacy by default)... and it does the same job, and FAR more!
The "more" being:
---
1.) More security (blocking know spammers/trackers/phishers + maliciously coded sites or redirects, and sites known to serve malware etc.)
2.) Speed (blocking adbanners + hardcoded favorite sites @ the top of it beating DNS indexes up to ~3++ million line entries using 20 of them)
3.) Reliability (vs. redirect poisoned or downed DNS servers - especially considering 99% of the DNS servers, especially @ the ISP level, are unpatched vs. the Kaminsky flaw)
4.) Anonymity to an extent (DNS request logs/DNSBL)).
---
* See the entire list of what it does for you, which is a LOT MORE than AdBlock/Ghostery & the like in the link above...
APK
P.S.=> Using those crippled or advertiser owned (fox guarding the henhouse) addons? You're also "layered-in" over slower Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers, slowing them down even more using addons (fact, try it in FireFox putting in a lot of addons, you'll see) - whereas my app operates in Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode as a filter for the TCP/IP stack, written in C, which is also far faster than those tools are written in slower languages like Perl, Javascript, etc. & operates RIGHT @ OS + IP stack startup (making browser addons, redundant)... apk
Adblock "souled-out"... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 03:16 · Score: 0

9 days ago, I submit this here. Not only REJECTED but REMOVED from submissions -> http://slashdot.org/submission/2783319/adblock-getting-paid-by-google-to-allow-their-ads
(Which indicates suppression of VALID information on /.)
Here's something a LOT better on many fronts: For those of you that run Microsoft Windows 32 or 64 bit? An automated hosts file creation & mgt. program:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
* It's NOT "bought-in/souled-out" (misspelling intentional on the latter) like Ghostery (advertiser owned/fox guarding your henhouse) or AdBlock (lobbyist bribed to lesser efficacy by default)... and it does the same job, and FAR more!
The "more" being:
---
1.) More security (blocking know spammers/trackers/phishers + maliciously coded sites or redirects, and sites known to serve malware etc.)
2.) Speed (blocking adbanners + hardcoded favorite sites @ the top of it beating DNS indexes up to ~3++ million line entries using 20 of them)
3.) Reliability (vs. redirect poisoned or downed DNS servers - especially considering 99% of the DNS servers, especially @ the ISP level, are unpatched vs. the Kaminsky flaw)
4.) Anonymity to an extent (DNS request logs/DNSBL)).
---
* See the entire list of what it does for you, which is a LOT MORE than AdBlock/Ghostery & the like in the link above...
APK
P.S.=> Using those crippled or advertiser owned (fox guarding the henhouse) addons? You're also "layered-in" over slower Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers, slowing them down even more using addons (fact, try it in FireFox putting in a lot of addons, you'll see). My app's resultfile (hosts) operates in Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode (a filter for the TCP/IP stack), written in C which is far faster than those tools are written in slower languages like Perl, Javascript, etc. & operates RIGHT @ OS + IP stack startup (making browser addons, redundant)... apk
AdBlock "souled-out"... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-17 03:44 · Score: 0

9 days ago I submit this. Was REJECTED & also REMOVED from submissions -> http://slashdot.org/submission/2783319/adblock-getting-paid-by-google-to-allow-their-ads
(Which indicates suppression of VALID information on /.)
Here's something a LOT better on many fronts: For those of you that run Microsoft Windows 32 or 64 bit? An automated hosts file creation & mgt. program:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74
* It's NOT "bought-in/souled-out" (misspelling intentional on the latter) like Ghostery (advertiser owned/fox guarding your henhouse) or AdBlock (lobbyist bribed to lesser efficacy by default)... and it does the same job, and FAR more!
The "more" being:
---
1.) More security (blocking know spammers/trackers/phishers + maliciously coded sites or redirects, and sites known to serve malware etc.)
2.) Speed (blocking adbanners + hardcoded favorite sites @ the top of it beating DNS indexes up to ~3++ million line entries using 20 of them)
3.) Reliability (vs. redirect poisoned or downed DNS servers - especially considering 99% of the DNS servers, especially @ the ISP level, are unpatched vs. the Kaminsky flaw)
4.) Anonymity to an extent (DNS request logs/DNSBL)).
---
* See the entire list of what it does for you, which is a LOT MORE than AdBlock/Ghostery & the like in the link above...
APK
P.S.=> Using those crippled or advertiser owned (fox guarding the henhouse) addons? You're also "layered-in" over slower Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers, slowing them down even more using addons (fact, try it in FireFox putting in a lot of addons, you'll see). My app's resultfile (hosts) operates in Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode (a filter for the TCP/IP stack), written in C which is far faster than those tools are written in slower languages like Perl, Javascript, etc. & operates RIGHT @ OS + IP stack startup (making browser addons, redundant)... apk
Oligopoly by tepples · 2013-07-17 05:42 · Score: 1

If you go to a supermarket and they insist on following you down the aisle making suggestions, the solution isnt to pass a law, its to stop going to that supermarket.
So once all supermarkets adopt the same practices, what's the best way to avoid being tracked?