Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Do Not Track' Bill Aims To Let Consumers Reject Online Tracking (consumerist.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the stop-tracking-bill-he's-tired-of-it dept.

kheldan writes: A newly introduced piece of federal legislation aims to give consumers more choices about when their browsing behavior is being tracked. Today, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Ed Markey (MA) are introducing the Do Not Track Online Act of 2015 (PDF), which would direct the Federal Trade Commission to create new regulations "regarding the collection and use of personal information obtained by tracking the online activity of an individual."

10 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Do not call was pretty fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how are they going to enforce "do not track" if they can't even enforce do not call?

    1. Re:Do not call was pretty fail by aaron4801 · · Score: 2

      Well it worked with the CAN SPAM Act of 2003 didn't it?!?

    2. Re:Do not call was pretty fail by Sowelu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, Do Not Call is a pretty stellar success...things are a lot better now than they were before, and very large penalties are handed out on a regular basis. It's almost guaranteed that every solicitor who ignores Do Not Call is a scammer; it stops legit companies (which were the majority of this stuff) dead in their tracks.

    3. Re:Do not call was pretty fail by XXongo · · Score: 2

      I think I get about one call a DAY. How do YOU get the do not call to work???

    4. Re:Do not call was pretty fail by swb · · Score: 2

      I hired a couple of ex-Mossad freelancers and suddenly that company quit calling anyone.

  2. There will be a "Do Not Track" cookie by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Each Do Not Track cookie will have a serial number that cannot be used for tracking purposes. /sarcasm

  3. Ask the engineers by mstefanro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not write these bills in collaboration with software engineers, who have a clue?

    We don't want more ridiculous things like the mandatory "by visiting this site you agree with our website using cookies" messages.

  4. Re:Right, because the Do-Not-Call list works so we by Viewsonic · · Score: 2

    Do not call lists have worked perfect for myself for the past decade or so?

    I just wish they would make it so political calls could be added to that list.

  5. Re:While we're at it by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    You seem to want to say that we just can't know what evil doors are tracking us. But I would gladly support a bill that simply says when I visit your website don't connect to Facebook and a dozen other "social media" sites at the same time, particularly is there is no indication that I'm a member of Facebook or any of the other social media sites. Not only does this invade my privacy but it wastes my bandwidth, drives up my data usage and slows my connection. And personally I'll never join any of these sites so they have no right to know my browsing history. While we might not know who is going to blow up skyscrapers or steal our identity (although I believe all of the wacko conspiracy theories about 9/11), we can easily see all of the traffic connections made to other sites when we visit a website. Just outlawing those simple direct connections to other sites would make the web a lot safer and securer as well as faster and more private, and it is not wishful thinking that could not really be done.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  6. Re:Right, because the Do-Not-Call list works so we by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

    Do not call lists have worked perfect for myself for the past decade or so?

    I just wish they would make it so political calls could be added to that list.

    Having no land-line works perfectly for this. Unless you're really old, I can't understand why anyone still has a land-line