Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google and Apple Weaseling Out of "Do Not Track"

Posted by timothy on from the except-for-the-following-circumstances dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Per an op-ed in today's New York Times, Google, Apple, and others would be effectively exempt from "Do not track": "[T]he rules would allow the largest Internet giants to continue scooping up data about users on their own sites and on other sites that include their plug-ins, such as Facebook's 'Like' button or an embedded YouTube video. This giant loophole would make 'Do Not Track' meaningless."

4 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. No problem. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Informative

    You go to a Google site, expect to be tracked. If it's an issue to you, don't do to a Google site.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:No problem. by bmimatt · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are obviously clueless. The issue is cross-domain tracking, as in where someone uses one of the FB, Goog, or other 'widgets' or advertising integrations on their own site. Could be something as 'unrelated' as using Goog Analytics. You visit site X, the analytics code collects information about your visit and stores it on Goog servers. Then you visit site Y and code used to embed youtube video does the same. Rinse, Repeat.

    2. Re:No problem. by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm a big fan of Privacy Badger, mainly because it can automatically block trackers based on behavior rather than having to rely on someone's premade block list.

      https://www.eff.org/privacybad...

      The same folks provide HTTPS Everywhere, another must-have.

      https://www.eff.org/HTTPS-EVER...

  2. DNT is useless by design by janoc · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did anyone actually believe that the do-not-track flag was effective? There is pretty much no way it can be enforced and the companies can do whatever they want in most cases. E.g. Facebook does not honor it outright, most advertising networks ignore it as well. It was only a silly boondoggle to quickly placate the regulator/lawmakers by showing that the self-regulation in the advertising industry actually "works" and thus no heavy-handed regulation is necessary. That flag is completely useless otherwise.

    If you want some semblance of privacy from the pervasive tracking, you must use a solution that is completely under your control - i.e. ad blockers, NoScript, Ghostery, block Flash, etc. and not something that relies on the good will of the advertiser that they will obey some silly flag.