Slashdot Mirror
5 Years Later, 'Do Not Track' System Ineffective
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from ComputerWorld:
"In 2009, a few Internet privacy advocates developed an idea that was supposed to give people a way to tell websites they don't want to be monitored as they move from website to website. The mechanism, which would eventually be built into all the major browsers, was called Do Not Track. ... But today, DNT hangs by a thread, neutered by a failure among stakeholders to reach agreement. Yes, if you turn it on in your browser, it sends a signal in the form of an HTTP header to Web companies' servers. But it probably won't change what data they collect. That's because most websites either don't honor DNT — it's currently a voluntary system — or they interpret it in different ways. Another problem — perhaps the biggest — is that Web companies, ad agencies and the other stakeholders have never reached agreement on what "do not track" really means."
Another problem â" perhaps the biggest â" is that Web companies, ad agencies and the other stakeholders have never reached agreement on what "do not track" really means.
"Do not track" is dead because the meaning is so obvious that they couldn't find a way to gut its meaning while pretending to give it lip service.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
NO. People just don't want the web equivalent of a radio collar attached to them. They do not want to be stalked by creepy advertisers. They can advertise without stalking. Advertising survived and flourished for centuries without stalking.
Who the heck buys a newspaper just for the ads?
You must be a youngun'. Back in the pre-web days there were magazines that were pretty much 100% ads. "Computer Shopper" was one. "Nuts & Volts" was 90% ads. The best part of PC Magazine was the page of tombstone ads at the very back of the magazine, often for some weird product from a garage start-up. I have bought many, many newspapers/magazines "just for the ads".
No. Just, no.
Go back to class and learn how HTTP works. The user (and his "agent", the designated software making requests on his behalf) are fully in control of the experience. The website presents content on an open interface, and the user, via his agent, requests it as he sees fit. If he requests the text of the page, but not the images, that's his prerogative, not the site owner's. If he requests only certain images, follows only certain links, and doesn't do certain DOM manipulations via scripting, that also is the viewer's prerogative. The site owner has fuck-all to say about it.
That's why site owners cannot win against AdBlock. HTTP was built for exactly the situation that AdBlock enforces. It's just that most site owners got used to lazy, unconfigurable user agents that didn't do what their users actually wanted. Now that some users are daring to go against that "standard", site owners are showing their true colors by becoming a bunch of whiny asshats.
This has nothing to do with geeks, either. AdBlock is becoming my go-to tool for people that complain their "internet is slow". And once they get a glimpse of the web without ads, it's game over. Nobody wants advertising. People tolerate advertising as long as what they get in return is worth putting up with some no-skill ass-clown shouting about the product he's been hired to shill for. But advertising companies long ago stepped across that line. I have no moral qualms about wiping out advertising completely. I'm willing to do it and put up with whatever consequences there are. Advertisers are wise to not push me or those that think similarly.