The attack on Do Not Track | Hacker News Reader

The attack on Do Not Track

roughtype.com

I suspect that tracking is important enough to online operations that if more than a small percentage of people opt-out, sites will start requiring users to opt-in to view content. There's no free ride, after all.

Carr believes that this turn of events would be an improvement - instead of the current unwritten trade of content for information, everything is out in the open and users can make informed choices.

I think it'll be a disaster - I doubt many users want to take the time to make this decision multiple times a day. People will continue to click through agreements without reading them, but since these agreements will now be opt-in, publishers will be more and more comfortable loading them up with intrusive terms. Law of unintended consequences in action.

Indeed, disaster is coming. The problem is, the champions of this law don't understand technically intertwined user tracking is with providing basic functionality on websites.

Users will be forced to encounter cases where a website says, "we need you to opt-in to be tracked so that we can provide this convenient feature that you like to use." Then, the users won't understand why they have to do this either, and they'll get angry at the site.

There will probably be a rider to the law that states that you can't discriminate against users that select "Do Not Track". That will be added by the Trial Lawyer's Lobby so they can ensure a class action lawsuit is filed.

6 years ago called. He said that John Edwards hasn't been on a general election ballot since 2004, and there's no organization called the Trial Lawyers Lobby.. he suggests demonizing community organizers and voter registration groups instead.

Of course there is a Trial Lawyers Lobby. They meet on alternating Thursdays at the Stonecutter's Lodge (it's BYOB).

Yes, you are correct. They have rebranded as the American Association for Justice.

http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/default.h...

If this all goes through, I suppose it's only a matter of time before websites detect your Do Not Track preferences and essentially limit the content you can see like the pay-walls some online content providers have now. "Add this site to your Do Not Track exception-list to view full articles."

So? That's the purpose, after all, to give the viewer a choice rather than default to whatever the web site wants.

The author bills it as 'freedom of choice', but I would argue we already have freedom of choice when it comes to advertising on the internet. In the same way that I can mute the TV when commercials come on, I can also turn on ad blocker, flash blocker, cookie blocker, and other such plugins or extensions. These steps will foil all but the most invasive advertisers, for whom you can still foil by more sophisticated methods. The choice is there, but it's up to the consumer to take action.

And what if sites continue to track you using browser signature techniques? This is not about having an "arms race" with every internet user, but having a default policy in place.

Shouldn't that fall under the responsibility of the browser author then? It seems like this policy just makes it easier for individuals to file lawsuits.

The average user is not sophisticated enough to implement most of the steps you are comparing with a mute button so the comparison isn't really that great. It's more about being a matter of "freedom of choice" for everyone and not just those that are technically savvy. Anyone can fill out the form to get a phone number on the do not call list, not everyone can install and maintain an ad blocker, cookie blocker, flash blocker nor manage to get those turned off when they actually need a feature on a site that isn't related to tracking them but the service that is provided.

I disagree. The user is sophisticated enough, but they need training. I work on a ship in the summers, and a subset of those people have no idea what I mean when I say the above things I mentioned. However, I show them, have them do the same action, and then they understand and are good to go. I believe making users smarter is a greater long term solution than policing behavior (of corporations or users).

Actually, you can. You can buy software to do this for you. I believe Norton does this, as do other internet security software available for home users (not entirely sure here).

DNC was different: People called you. On the internet, web sites don't call you; rather, you "call" web sites.

I can't speak to the most of these pieces of software but things like Norton don't do any good. They don't block ads and they allow you to remove cookies after the fact during their scans but not during sessions so you are still being tracked during any browsing sessions you may have between scans.

While you "call" websites you aren't telling the advertisers on those websites that you want them to follow you around the Internet you are interacting with the site you chose to visit and it's operators. That seems very much like an unwanted telephone call to me. They are both unwanted interactions with third parties that you should be able to opt-out of.

edit: These software solutions are still not even close to being comparable with the mute button used in the first example and barely comparable to the DNC. More importantly they are of questionable effectiveness.

You make some good points. As I said, I'm not really aware first hand of their capabilities. I'll just say that I still think that if a problem exists, the solution should be solved by the market, rather than any attempt at some form of "legislation." There are things that the browser makers and software vendors can do still. The problem, I think, is no one wants to pay for their privacy, but a lot of people, I imagine, would pay to give it up.

If you don't want to be tracked, the single best thing to do is to disable 3rd party cookies.

does one opt out of long-term cookie tracking by having a long-term cookie stored that says "do not track me"?

If the default is "don't track" then the absence of a cookie could just as well signify "do not track me"

Excellent points. Do Not Track is enormously popular, just as Do Not Call was, so it's a real challenge for companies who have prospered by tracking customers without telling them or giving them a real opportunity to say no.

How would this even work? Would every browser need to have a "don't track me" mechanism that the server would have to obey?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com