All three options only differ in what the tracker decides. He may collect more information for those who explicitly stated allow, just like the can collect information from those who say deny. It's just an honor system.
I'd mod this funny. Users don't configure stuff, they hire a guy to install windows for them, and except the same guy to configure their PC as well. Belive me, I used to be that guy once, and know plenty of people who do that as a living.
Nor do websites have any way of retreiving this infromation from your browser, regardless of your DNT setting, unless you install some software to them, or they have acces to you're browser's data on-disk.
Please, take the time to read the DNT specification before claiming stuff like this. DNT has three settings, which are basically "Allow tracking" "Deny tracking" "The user has not set a preference".
Firefox's default is the latter. Is does not opt you into anything (that would be the first option).
Nope, there's three options according to the DNT standard: "none", "allow", and "deny". The first, quite cleary, indicates that the user did not choose anything, and does not impose any setting. Choosing any of the latter two is imposing a setting onto the user, and that's what MS is doing.
Firefox does not set the DNT cookie to any value by default. So I must disagree in that "every fucking browser" opts you in by default. since that would mean they set the DNT header to "allow".
Google Apps is the extreme oposite of open source. Not only is it closed-source, but you actually depend on a particular service provider for both your tools and your data.
He said "open source", not merely "free", so one might assume he wants this because of principles and not out of cheapness. At my office we have no lack of funds for hardware, but we still use open source software only. This isn't uncommon in places where the high-ups care.
A big plus is that it's federated, so you can talk to Google Apps users, and other XMPP users out there. XMPP also has voice+video, so you can actually get rid of those old phones and just voice-chat through it (this is a matter of taste, but I think soft-phones have their pros).
In my experience, several clients will use the LAN to stream (intead of proxy on the internet) if both partys are in the same LAN, so you'll have very low latency and won't use up internet bandwidth.
Since IE decided to ignore the standard and take the choice for the users, then those who collect data will start ignoring IE10's DNT setting, resulting in a less-efficient DNT, and in harmed consumers.
The first time you access the website from that particular device, with that browser. I accessed ALL my bank accounts last week from my work PC, and my new bank account last week from my home PC. (I don't use any webmail).
Securing N-1 is a lousy solution: an IETF standard should aim to secure 100%, not N-1.
You're right, I mean, imagine if you had to create special DNS entries for different services, like MX records for email, or SRV records for XMPP (and SIP and a few others)!!
Yes, a great mechanism, inform the user over a non-secure channel that he should use a secure channel from now on! I'm sure there's no way to crack this HSTS, I mean, it's not like anyone would intercept the first communication; that's just unpolite, even for crackers!
You missed the first part of my comment "In plenty of countries". I know for a fact that USA isn't one of them, but plenty of other are. Of course, large businesses and corporations have brand-named computes everywhere.
Personally, I'd never buy a brand-name computer because the setups are too limited. By buying a white-box computer, I can customize it as I please.
Really? You're stating that most households don't have several mobile phones? I live in Argentina, which is quite underdeveloped, and there are over 40M active mobile phones, which our population is 37M. I don't think access to a mobile phone is an issue to someone with internet access.
Slashdot Mirror
So, Canada is in Europe? Or is it Asia?
[...]some kind of Unix[...]
unix-like OSs sound close enough to me, even they're kind-of-unix, even though they're not formally Unix.
The point is that BSODs are not random occurrences, there is usually an underlying cause.
Good luck trying to prove that with the new non-descriptive BSODs!
*nix also includes GNU/Linux, which is way cheaper than both windows and os x.
All three options only differ in what the tracker decides. He may collect more information for those who explicitly stated allow, just like the can collect information from those who say deny. It's just an honor system.
I'd mod this funny. Users don't configure stuff, they hire a guy to install windows for them, and except the same guy to configure their PC as well.
Belive me, I used to be that guy once, and know plenty of people who do that as a living.
Nor do websites have any way of retreiving this infromation from your browser, regardless of your DNT setting, unless you install some software to them, or they have acces to you're browser's data on-disk.
Please, take the time to read the DNT specification before claiming stuff like this.
DNT has three settings, which are basically
"Allow tracking"
"Deny tracking"
"The user has not set a preference".
Firefox's default is the latter. Is does not opt you into anything (that would be the first option).
Nope, there's three options according to the DNT standard:
"none", "allow", and "deny".
The first, quite cleary, indicates that the user did not choose anything, and does not impose any setting. Choosing any of the latter two is imposing a setting onto the user, and that's what MS is doing.
Firefox does not set the DNT cookie to any value by default.
So I must disagree in that "every fucking browser" opts you in by default. since that would mean they set the DNT header to "allow".
Google Apps is the extreme oposite of open source.
Not only is it closed-source, but you actually depend on a particular service provider for both your tools and your data.
He said "open source", not merely "free", so one might assume he wants this because of principles and not out of cheapness.
At my office we have no lack of funds for hardware, but we still use open source software only. This isn't uncommon in places where the high-ups care.
Use XMPP for chat, and voice+video.
A big plus is that it's federated, so you can talk to Google Apps users, and other XMPP users out there.
XMPP also has voice+video, so you can actually get rid of those old phones and just voice-chat through it (this is a matter of taste, but I think soft-phones have their pros).
In my experience, several clients will use the LAN to stream (intead of proxy on the internet) if both partys are in the same LAN, so you'll have very low latency and won't use up internet bandwidth.
Since IE decided to ignore the standard and take the choice for the users, then those who collect data will start ignoring IE10's DNT setting, resulting in a less-efficient DNT, and in harmed consumers.
Sure, I mean, it would make no sense to have really-long-distance-highways with self-driving-buses in a couple of decades, right?
You sound like a marketing sleaze with that attitude. DNT should be the default for all applications with users having to opt-in to be tracked.
It amazes me how you think businesses are entitled to store the information you send them.
FTFY.
The first time you access the website from that particular device, with that browser.
I accessed ALL my bank accounts last week from my work PC, and my new bank account last week from my home PC. (I don't use any webmail).
Securing N-1 is a lousy solution: an IETF standard should aim to secure 100%, not N-1.
You forgot option C: I'll install AdBlock in a minute, so don't track me anyway. :)
Can't you POST an executionRequest?
Most browsers support DELETE and PUT through AJAX.
It's illegal for companies to spy on their employees in such a manner in most sane countries anyway, so I don't see any issues with this.
You're right, I mean, imagine if you had to create special DNS entries for different services, like MX records for email, or SRV records for XMPP (and SIP and a few others)!!
Yes, a great mechanism, inform the user over a non-secure channel that he should use a secure channel from now on!
I'm sure there's no way to crack this HSTS, I mean, it's not like anyone would intercept the first communication; that's just unpolite, even for crackers!
You missed the first part of my comment "In plenty of countries". I know for a fact that USA isn't one of them, but plenty of other are.
Of course, large businesses and corporations have brand-named computes everywhere.
Personally, I'd never buy a brand-name computer because the setups are too limited. By buying a white-box computer, I can customize it as I please.
Really? You're stating that most households don't have several mobile phones?
I live in Argentina, which is quite underdeveloped, and there are over 40M active mobile phones, which our population is 37M. I don't think access to a mobile phone is an issue to someone with internet access.