Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

5 of 96 comments (clear)

  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 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!”
  2. 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

  3. 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 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.