Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DuckDuckGo Warns that Google Does Not Respect 'Do Not Track' Browser Setting (spreadprivacy.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

DuckDuckGo cautions internet users that companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, do not respect the "Do Not Track" setting on web browsers. From a report: According to DuckDuckGo's research, over 77% of US adults are not aware of that fact. The "Do Not Track" (DNT) setting on browsers sends signals to web services to stop tracking a user's activity. However, the DNT setting is only a voluntary signal which websites are not obligated to respect. "It can be alarming to realize that Do Not Track is about as foolproof as putting a sign on your front lawn that says "Please, don't look into my house" while all of your blinds remain open."

96 comments

  1. Finally something the FCC should enforce by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If your browser tells sites to not track, and they still do, impose some hefty fines.

    1. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by bobbied · · Score: 1

      When the server is off shore and not owned by a US company?

      Protect yourself if you don't want to be tracked... Don't count on the good intentions of the sites you visit... If they want to track you, they will. Even if they don't set out to track you, they likely will collect a lot of information about you in their web server logs and *somebody* can track you if they get the logs and wanted to.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you live in California in 2020 (or Europe now), you can legally force them to delete all information about you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re: Finally something the FCC should enforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people wonder why google creates such paranoia

    4. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by Solandri · · Score: 2

      The "Do Not Track" setting has no legal authority. It was a marketing scheme (scam) by Microsoft to try to get people to switch back to IE. They could advertise that "our browser supports Do Not Track, while Chrome and Firefox do not," leaving out that it's completely voluntary - the website decides whether or not they want to respect your Do Not Track flag.

    5. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't bother. It died the moment MS announced their intention to turn it on by default.

    6. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Then they don't have jurisdiction to enforce anything. But, we could at least make involuntary surveillance a domestic crime. Combined with making it a crime to purchase such surveillance information from foreigners, it would be a good start.

      The next step would be forming international treaties to the same effect so that international surveillance could also be prosecuted. You'd never get everyone on board, but every little bit helps.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That's currently true, but it could be changed.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But you can never prove if they actually do. Besides, the NSA, et al is tracking everybody anyway, so what difference does it make? Just crap flood the system with chaff and let god sort it out.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      When the server is off shore and not owned by a US company?

      Yes, moron. Believe it or not, foreign corporations are fined by the US all the time.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Then they don't have jurisdiction to enforce anything.

      Yes, they do. Civil penalties are enforced against foreign corporations all the time. This is not some radical concept.

      I mean, if it's some outlaw North Korean outlet or from some rogue regime like Russia, then it's harder, but not impossible.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it can't be changed.

      As long as the "do not track" process consists of the browser "reporting it's intentions" and the server at the other end "respecting those intentions" then it's a broken process. No amount of laws and media hype will change that.

      The only way to "fix it" is to have the browser randomly alter it's identity so the server at the other end can never track it.

    12. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Ajit Pai will get right on that because he really cares about the consumers.

    13. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      "Do not track" flag is like a sign on a curtain saying "Do not enter" and no other means of preventing entry.

      If I don't want to be tracked, then I close the avenue for the trackers.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    14. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If your browser tells sites to not track, and they still do, impose some hefty fines.

      With what authority? The entire scheme was voluntarily introduced by some industry code. There's no enforcement mechanism, legal or otherwise. You asking a company to do something in no way obligates them to do anything.

    15. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by Immerman · · Score: 1

      A technical solution would certainly be better, but it's just a matter of passing the right law to give the DNT "suggestion" the force of law.

      And that's pretty significant in itself. After all, there are no technical limitations preventing you from committing theft, murder, or most any other crime - just the threat of legal retribution. It's not a perfect system, but it's miles better than nothing.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    16. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Sure. There is however some difficulty in prosecuting a foreign company for doing something that's perfectly legal where they did it. After all, you visited *them*, not the other way around.

      We're only just beginning to sort out how to handle jurisdictional issues on the internet, and it's far from settled how such things should be handled. For now, if you want a company you're dealing with to be bound by your country's laws, you should only deal with companies fully located within your own country. Everything else gets... debatable.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    17. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by bobbied · · Score: 1

      When the server is off shore and not owned by a US company?

      Yes, moron. Believe it or not, foreign corporations are fined by the US all the time.

      But do they pay? Unless they have some kind of assets in the USA, why would they? Fines are only a deterrent when they can be forcibly collected, AND when they are large enough to sufficiently impact profits.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if a site knowingly does NOT respect the Do Not Track settings, a browser could start sending random/bad data to make what those sites are tracking worthless, as it would be incorrect. So there's the way to incentivize sites to respect the requested setting.

      Of course, since Chrome--a browser made by an advertising company--has every incentive to ensure all data is accurate, you can't count on them to do that. And then it's time to look for a browser maker whose business model doesn't rely on advertising.

    19. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      But do they pay?

      Yes.

      As I said, you shouldn't trust companies from rogue states though.

      See, this is one of the benefits of globalism. You have fewer places from where you can do crooked shit.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re: Finally something the FCC should enforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Privacy badger FTW

    21. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      DDG works great for me. No more creepy search results based upon what I last watched on Youtube. You may think such things are relevant, but I don't want them. I do not want tracking, I do not want searches tailored for me.

    22. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      The "Do Not Track" setting has no legal authority. It was a marketing scheme (scam) by Microsoft

      You are either extremely misinformed, or intentionally lying. The current scammy DNT protocol was proposed by Google and Mozilla, with the express purpose of blocking the competing Microsoft design.
      Microsoft's design (proposed as a W3C standard) did not rely on the benevolence of the tracking sites. Here's a relevant quote from the article cited above:

      Microsoft uses a third method. Known as Tracking Protection Lists, it relies on predefined lists of domains known to track your behavior via ad technologies.

      Basically, Microsoft's proposal was AdBlock/uBlock built in every browser. Trackers were blocked on the client, without any request being even sent to tracker sites. Control and choice belonged with customers.

      Google wouldn't however accept the pro-consumer solution, so they forced their scammy design through the standard committee. This blocked the much better Microsoft proposal. And, after sabotaging the standardization of DNT, Google doesn't even honor their own protocol.

    23. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait, let me track your "not wanting to be tracked" ... just to be sure when not to ..ummm..errr... track you.

    24. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by Hillie · · Score: 1

      Or stop being naive and thinking that if you tell criminals not to rob you blind that they will listen.

      Here is a better alternative:

      1. If it's free, it's stealing your data. Don't use it.

      An example of this that I don't know how it works is Honey. Honey "freely" lets you save money on thousands of sites. All this is powered by servers that they have to pay for, and resources that aren't free. So they MUST be selling your data.

      I don't use Honey because I'd rather pay a little extra for stuff, than let another "Whizz Bang Silicon Valley Circus - The Greatest Show on Earth" app that boasts that it will save the whales, and all sorts of other super cool things while enabling a nerd to get a super model girlfriend etc. etc. No. It steals your data.

      This is how we got to where we are today by blindly using things that say they're free when what they take from you is more valuable than money.

      Things were ethical when they were making money off ads alone. They got greedy when they started selling private data to the highest bidder. Stuff that they DON'T need to have, like where you are every 3 seconds on Earth.. like Google does on all Android phones.

      --
      - Alex
    25. Re:Finally something the FCC should enforce by ememisya · · Score: 1

      Yea the whole idea was dumb anyways. It's like "Hello, my name is Bob, and don't track me." Companies are like, "Bob? Okay, I'll write it down here, 'Don't track Bob' got it. Have a nice day Bob."

  2. "Over" 77%... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

    The DNT setting is just some completely pointless browser setting. I would be shocked if 23% of adults had any idea what it is in the first place, much less who respects it.

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    1. Re: "Over" 77%... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. "At least 22% of respondents do not answer truthfully to surveys" may be the only valid research outcome here.

  3. EVERYONE KNOWS DNT is worthless already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And anyone who didn't expect Google to be ignoring privacy protocols is a FUCKING MORON ANYWAY. But I guess I do appreciate DDG warning the sheep, that's very herd dog of them. Useless though, with this flock...

  4. DNT is technically worthless. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    However... With it turned on, and they are found tracking your without your consent, or you filling out the approve form, in some areas you may be able to have some legal justification. Because you willingly declined to consent to yourself being tract.

    It is a lot like No Trespassing signs. There is nothing stopping someone from trespassing, however if they get injured on their property, they can at least show the court that they at least gave some warning not to go there, and they shouldn't be responsible for damages.

    Is this a legal silver bullet? No not at all, but at least it shows some sort of attempt on having a case.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  5. Hosts file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This weak DNT bullshit is unenforceable. There is no technical reason that DNT must be honored, and we know that in the wild west world wide web that there are no laws. The only option right now is for us to continue an arms race with hosts files, blockers, and RBLs.

    Web browser are application for end-users, not money machines for Google. If browser don't serve people, they will quit using them!

  6. No shit Sherlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This was known from day one.

    Trust, it just does not work with corporations.

  7. Will DuckDuckGo talk about NSA court orders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or keep pretending that they are above the American law, and pretend that they can ignore and court orders served to them for recording search history? If you really care about search privacy, you use StartPage with EU-based server settings.

    DuckDuckGo answers to American law and American court-and-gag orders, period.

    1. Re: Will DuckDuckGo talk about NSA court orders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DuckDuckGo doesn't have any data to give the law enforcement community, that's the beauty of it.

  8. I'm going to have to believe Google on this one by DickBreath · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Google has a "don't be evil" motto.

    DDG.gg, shortcut for DuckDuckGo, does not have such a motto.

    Google is not setting the evil bit on the packets it sends you.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:I'm going to have to believe Google on this one by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Had, not has. They eliminated it around the time that people started realizing it included silent punctuation: "Don't. Be evil."

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:I'm going to have to believe Google on this one by Alypius · · Score: 1

      It's now "Meh. Evil is judgy. Don't judge."

    3. Re:I'm going to have to believe Google on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if Google ignores the "don't be evil' motto 77% of the time as well?

    4. Re:I'm going to have to believe Google on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google chrome is "Drive- by - Malware" That's why you have to search for that really small button & clik ... "Decide not to Install that incideous Malware called "Google chrome" on endless download programs.

  9. DDG? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they in business?
    Last time I heard of them they were close to Chapter 11.

  10. Re: I'm going to have to believe Google on this on by mcarp · · Score: 5, Informative

    You forgot, Google took away the don't be evil motto

  11. Re: I'm going to have to believe Google on this on by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Shhhhh! They don't want people to know that.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  12. Advertising by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Advertising destroys every medium in which it is used. Ever.

    This is because there is absolutely no restraining force to limit or self police behavior of advertisers. So is Google's behavior any surprise?

    Begin rant.

    I'll start with Radio and not comment.

    TV had a tolerable number of ads. Somewhere during the golden age of TV the ads got more and more. And the quality of ads went way down. It used to be that the ads were somewhat entertaining. Then more and more ads. Lower quality programming.

    People fled to cable. The promise of cable was no ads. That illusion didn't last long. But it was tolerable. And programming content was superior. And included the network TV channels if you needed to see a program on network TV. Then the ads got worse. The content got worse. More and more time was spent on ads, and less on content. It got so bad that after an ad, when the content resumed, there would be more ads walking out onto the show you are watching, obscuring things, sometimes important things.

    People fled to internet TV. Some of it has ads, some does not. Hulu offers ad free for a higher price, which I'm willing to pay. Netflix is free of ads. When they started considering ads, I wrote them about how this is a slippery slope. Netflix has not put in ads, yet. I also suggested if the did introduce ads, have a higher priced ad-free tier. HBO, Starz and Amazon Prime are free of ads.

    Now YouTube has ads. It was okay at first. Now it's getting intolerable. They push YouTube Red. But their ads have gotten so bad, I may just forego ever getting YT Red because I find the ads so offensive.

    The web. No ads at first. It was about information. Then ads came. And came and came and came. And ad / malware networks. Then sites where an article was one paragraph per page, and each page had that one paragraph surrounded in dozens of blinking flashing dancing animated seizure inducing ads. And deceptive ads that try to look like an OS window warning you of something. And the advertising networks, and even host web sites were complicit in this. So I have no sympathy for sites complaining about ad blockers. If a site isn't usable with an ad blocker, I never go there again. No site has or ever will have anything valuable enough to overcome this. And since I won't go there, I won't find out even if they did. And I don't care.

    Ads are a blight on our cities. And even the countryside. Miles and miles of billboards along roads. It's disgusting.

    These people know no bounds. Absolutely none. Phones, tablets, personal computers all spy on us now for the sake of ads! Our cars spy on us for ads. Smart TVs spy on us for ads. IoT devices spy on us for ads.

    Once the technology is available, these people will lobby to require ads on the inside of our eyelids. Yes really. Mark my words. They'll probably want your internal vital organs at some point.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radio and tv still exist, your argument is retarded.

    2. Re:Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it's not simple you fuckwit.

    3. Re:Advertising by ljw1004 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ads are a blight on our cities. And even the countryside. Miles and miles of billboards along roads. It's disgusting.

      From Ogden Nash, apparently 1932 https://www.newyorker.com/maga...

      I think that I shall never see
      a billboard lovely as a tree.
      Perhaps, unless the billboards fall,
      I'll never see a tree at all.

    4. Re:Advertising by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      This is because there is absolutely no restraining force to limit or self police behavior of advertisers.

      Actually there was and they were happy to comply when the choice was an active choice made by users and browsers required opt-in to do it. Unfortunately Microsoft shat the bed and made it an opt out feature, then Google and Mozilla happily joined in the fecal party and ... you won't believe this next bit ... advertisers decided "do not track" had stopped being a user choice and decided to just give the middle finger to the entire concept.

    5. Re:Advertising by Immerman · · Score: 1

      It's even worse than that - even if advertisers were incredibly polite and non-invasive (Ha!) ads are still inherently evil. Their entire purpose is to make you want something you previously had no interest in. And in doing so they generate an artificial poverty, diminishing your wealth regardless or whether you actually buy whatever's being sold.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:Advertising by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Radio and TV are both a vast wasteland. I quit watching a long time ago. I do subscribe to multiple internet streaming services, without ads.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    7. Re:Advertising by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      What makes you think I still watch it? I stopped long ago once I realized how bad the advertising had become.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    8. Re:Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Advertising is what fuels the Internet. Would you like a genie to go back and make the Internet never exist in the first place? Because it never would have grown if it weren't for the ads.

      And I HATE ads. But I can recognize their significant contribution to the size and scope of the Internet's infrastructure.

    9. Re: Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I donâ(TM)t want TV mostly for this reason and am dropping my cable. With HBO Online, Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon having tolerable amounts of ads, thereâ(TM)s simply no reason to. When some douchebag plays the same annoying ads (Think Kars For Kids) every damn commercial break I usually switch to the podcast version of the show. I donâ(TM)t watch live TV on satellite/cable/antenna and instead DVR it specifically so I can fast forward the commercial breaks.

      My mailbox overflows with ads. For every one legitimate piece of mail I get thereâ(TM)s at least 15 ads in it.

      Email is destroyed. It used to be that even Outlook made an effort to sort it out but now for about the last six months itâ(TM)s obvious theyâ(TM)re not even trying.

      Fuck ads.

    10. Re:Advertising by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I think that I shall never see
      a billboard lovely as a tree.
      Perhaps, unless the billboards fall,
      I'll never see a tree at all.

      ...Burma Shave.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    11. Re:Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start an anti-ad party. Win the election. Outlaw advertising. On the web, on TV, on billboards - everywhere. Nobody really needs advertising - those who need "information on products" can order a catalog/visit a shop. Or on the web, search for webshops.

      People will still buy all sorts of things they need, and a lot of unnecessary fluff too. So no, manufacturers don't need the ads that much either. Not if the competition can't have ads either. The ad industry itself would die - it'd be fun burying it.

    12. Re:Advertising by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Ads are a blight on our cities. And even the countryside. Miles and miles of billboards along roads. It's disgusting.

      Growing up in Vermont, where billboards are banned for this very reason, it's still jarring to me to be driving out in the country in some other state only to come across some shitty billboard blocking the scenery. Now they've got LCD screens that light up and are showing video, and that's so fucking distracting I'm seriously tempted to see if a rifle could solve the problem. The advertising in Blade Runner wasn't supposed to be aspirational.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    13. Re: Advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you might be wrong about email ads. I NEVER receive ads or spam in my gmail inbox, just because I am careful who gets my email address. also be a bit more aggressive when you do receive spam/ads, try to unsubscribe from the email service that sent you the spam. try to find out who sent it and how they got your address. do a bit of work, threaten them with legal repercussions. there must be a consumer-oriented government faction in your country that can help you. do your part, else you are part of the reason it got so bad in the first place.

  13. Re: I'm going to have to believe Google on this on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, they just modifies it to "Don't NOT be evil"!!

  14. Silly concept anyway by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

    A "voluntary signal" is worth almost nothing. Cross-site tracking should be blocked by the browser. I know Firefox and Safari have those as options, at least.

    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
  15. And this is a surprise? by taustin · · Score: 1

    I've always assumed "Do Not Track" was akin to unsubscribing from spam mailing lists - it just confirms you're real and guarantees they will continue to spam you/track you until the heat death of the universe.

    Google, Facebook and Twitter are all advertising companies. Of course they engage in any and all practices that let them generate more advertising revenue. It'd be a breach of their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders to not do so.

    1. Re:And this is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " It'd be a breach of their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders to not do so. " - If you actually think that you know nothing about law nor business.

    2. Re:And this is a surprise? by taustin · · Score: 1

      I know more than to take legal advice from some anonymous idiot on Slashdot.

    3. Re:And this is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is giving you advice, we're saying you're a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about and that's quite evident. Go fuck yourself faggot, your name is worthless anyway. You're a known moron.

    4. Re:And this is a surprise? by taustin · · Score: 1

      "We"? You have a mouse in your pocket, or have the voices come back? If you'd take your meds, they'd stay away.

    5. Re:And this is a surprise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you not an american user? The only thing we worship more than our lawyers is profit.

  16. nobody cares about those hipster wannabees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seroiusly, DDG sucks donkey balls for search.

  17. It's Slashdot Storytime! by Deathlizard · · Score: 2

    The Fable of the Wolves and the Sheepherders. (or Why DNT Is Stupid)
    Originally Published on October 27, 2012

    Once upon a time, there was a group of 4 sheepherders that tended to their sheep in the far far away land of internetia. Farmer Bill, Steve, Larry and Gary tended their flocks and would try to draw more sheep with either better grass, or shelter from the weather, or protection from predators. it got so competitive that sheep from other farms would jump the fences because some farms offered better comforts than others.

    One day, a large pack of wolves (Genus: advertis infectus) started eating the sheep. The farmers responded accordingly. Farmer Bill first bought a "Tracking Protection" Caliber Shotgun. Which sometimes killed some wolves but would take about 10-30 shots before it killed them. Farmer Gary built a doghouse in which the sheep hired a German adblockplus and a Dutch noscript to protect them, which worked very well. Farmer Larry also built a doghouse, but was not as nice as Farmer Gary's doghouse. Eventually a German Adblockplus moved in, but it would get sick due to the cold getting into the doghouse and some wolves would get to the sheep. Eventually, Farmer Bill saw how well the sheepdogs worked and finally built a kennel by his own design to attract sheepdogs directly, but it was so badly designed that very few sheepdogs took the opportunity to live in it, and the few that did couldn't do their job well because they were sick all of the time. Farmer Steve didn't seem to do anything worthwhile and the sheep we so enamored by Steve's aura and immaculate looking farm that they didn't seem to care.

    The wolves, losing many a comrade to the Sheepdogs, decided they needed to take action. First they asked the grass to stop growing if the sheepdogs protected the sheep that hired the sheepdogs, but the grass didn't stop growing. Finally the Wolves went to the World Carnivore Collection Consortium (W3C) and proposed the following treaty.

    The farmers would have a can of Red Paint handy that the Sheep could use to put a Red X on their back. Any Sheep with the red X on their back would not be touched by the wolves. However, according to the rules, the Farmer could not paint the sheep themselves.

    Farmer Gary and Steve adopted the practice quickly. Some Astute sheep noticed that the sheep with the Red X never got attacked by wolves and put the Red X on themselves, while other sheep didn't trust the wolves and still hired the sheepdogs. Farmer Larry wasn't too fond of the paint, since he secretly had a wolf as a pet, but eventually he made the red paint available as well as built a better doghouse for the Sheepdogs.

    Farmer Bill, on the other hand, saw an opportunity to turn this into a feature that could protect his sheep and draw some sheep from other farms, since so many sheep jumped his fence to go to the nicer pastures of Firefox Ranch and Chrome Acres. But he had to find a way to follow the rules but get as many Sheep to put on the Red X as possible. Then he had the solution. His solution was to ask the sheep if they wanted the default pasture experience. If they wanted the Experience, all they had to do was put a Red X on their back. Eventually all of the sheep in the 10th pasture had a red X on their back.

    The wolves noticed all of the Red Xs at the IE Corral and started crying foul. When Farmer Bill said he was following the rules and wouldn't change the policy, they first changed the treaty to not allow farmers to tell the sheep about the red paint, but the damage was already done, So the wolves decided to take a different approach to combat the problem. First they went to the Apache Fertilizer Co. and convinced them to add something to their fertilizer that when ingested by any Sheep in the IE corral, that it would dissolve the red X on their back. Other Wolves, such as the one named 'Yahoo' decided to ignore the Red X on the IE sheep altogether and started attacking the sheep Regardless if they had paint on their back or not.

    Some Sheep as well as

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
  18. We just need to push RFC3514 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt

  19. Do not track not required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not Track was a opt in for web sites. It is not required, and early on it was found many sites did not respect it. If your relying on a voluntary blocking then you should not expect 100% compliance.

  20. So what? Neither does anybody else. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Compliance with Do Not Track is voluntary. Literally nobody volunteers.

  21. Fuck off spammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off spammer. If we wanted to hear from you someone would have asked "APK can you please spam some of your hosts file shit all over the page?" but since no one did you can correctly assume that you are unwanted

    1. Re:Fuck off spammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why unwanted? I always enjoy APK posts and use his host files on all my gas machines.

      -Hitler

  22. worth almost nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worth almost nothing? I disagree.

    It's worth completely nothing!

  23. Browse from a live disk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sometimes use an old laptop with a Linux live disk to do my browsing. There's no hard drive in the laptop at all. Soon as I hit the power switch, everything is gone. No cookies, nothing left behind at all. With no hard drive, there's no information for them to get.

  24. News at 11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This does not come as a surprise WHATSOEVER. Google makes money tracking you, why would they give a flying food about what your preferences are?

    If you want to step up the game against trackers, here are some ideas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sC7eVT_qkM

  25. Spammer? I STOP THE BIG SPAMMERS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google & Advertisers: "Up here in space I'm looking DOWN on you. My lasers trace everything you DO - You THINK you've 'private lives' (think NOTHING of the KIND) - There is NO TRUE ESCAPE I'm watching ALL THE TIME..."

    ME & Hosts: I'm MADE of METAL: My circuits gleam - I.M. Perpetual - "I KEEP THE COUNTRY CLEAN"!!!

    * :)

    * FACT: Spammer? I STOP THE BIG SPAMMERS (google & advertisers who infect/track/slow you) & you f-off STALKING me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous!

    APK

    P.S.=> ALL per JUDAS PRIEST "Electric Eye" (great tune) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ... apk

  26. Re: Spammer? I STOP THE BIG SPAMMERS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judas Priest would think you were a big piece of Shit.

  27. "ALWAYS 'in focus': Can't kill my stare..." apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: (More google lol per https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...) "I 'zoom into you' but YOU don't KNOW, I'm there..."

    * Again: "I'm MADE of METAL - my circuits gleam: I.M. Perpetual I KEEP THE COUNTRY CLEAN!

    (NOT IF I CAN HELP IT)

    APK

    P.S.=> .. & YES, I can https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... & do (proof) https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... - NOW a message for you from that tune: (as I stop guys like you Herr Schickelgruber) "There's NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT - develop & expose - I feed upon YOUR EVERY THOUGHT & so my power GROWS..." per JUDAS PRIEST "Electric Eye" (great tune) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ... apk

  28. Google respects very few things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would barely trust Google to respect the Geneva Conventions, let alone the Do Not Track flag.

    1. Re:Google respects very few things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geneva conventions? These days you can declare the government you want to "regime-change" as unlawful and do anything and everything.

  29. Speaking for Judas Priest are you? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I by comparison let them SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES & I doubt they'd give a hassle to a Syracuse N.Y. product like me since from what I HEARD decades ago "someone" from Syracuse wrote the LYRICS FOR 'Electric Eye'" I quoted per https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    * Heavy Metal (one of my FAV genres in music) has ALWAYS been about 'protest' in many of its works of 'sonic-art' & my protest in conjunction w/ it IS this & it WORKS (better than ANY SINGLE OTHER whatever) https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> Good, SIMPLE hi-torque BULLETPROOF & BUGFREE design too no less per "yours truly" (I'm made of METAL)... apk

  30. DuckDuckGo's owner is an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy is pushing FUD about Google as hard as he can, because it drives users towards his website.

  31. Just use a VPN by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    For most, that should be "good enough"

  32. Re: Why do ya think I wrote this vs. tracking? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would I trust a spammer like you to secure my computer? It just doesn't make sense!

  33. Why do ya think I wrote this vs. tracking? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Via APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux/BSD h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k /APKHostsF i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x.zip

    Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any 1 solution (99% of threats use hostnames vs. IP address firewalls use) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!

    Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" slowing u hosts speed u up 2 ways: Adblocks + Hardcode fav. sites u spend most time @ vs. competition w/ security bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + overheads slowing u (messagepass 'souled-out' to advertisers easily detected & blocked addons + firewall filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploit!

    * ONLY 1 of its kind in GUI 4 Linux (soon 4 MacOS)!

    Great vs. DNS tracking & more see ps.

    APK

    P.S.=> Protects vs. scripts/trackers (kernelmode fast vs. usermode slow NoScript vs. 3rd party script)/ads/DNS request tracking + redirect poisoned or downed DNS/botnets/malware download/malcript/email malicious payload

  34. Re: Why do ya think I wrote this vs. tracking? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should read this and listen to the music accompanying it https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

  35. Please wait while I call swillden... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To explain why it is ok and u wanted to be tracked after all

  36. In other news... by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Wolves ignore "Do Not Eat The Sheep" signs. Film at 11.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  37. Re: Why do ya think I wrote this vs. tracking? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's be honest here, you are APK. Your posts are generally considered spam. I asked you a valid question about why you should be considered trustworthy given your behavior. You responded with a deception by pretending to not be APK. You answer is a non-answer, in that it doesn't answer my question.

    In a sense, though, you have answered my question. You've showed me that you're not trustworthy and I shouldn't install your software.

  38. DDG Giving Tips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DuckDuckGo itself tracks and forwards your information to Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, despite it saying that it respects your privacy. Why should anyone listen to them?

  39. And in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...100% of web crawlers ignore the contents of a robots.txt file.

    (now we can see who the real web nerds are)

  40. Living in a bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    90% of the people I know aren't even aware there is a "do not track button" let alone how it works.

    It's just gimmicks for lawmakers and regulators so they appear to respect the consumer. The lawmakers and regulators also don't understand how all this works, which is the real problem.