Why Do Not Track is Worse Than a Miserable Failure

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,412
The ‘Do Not Track’ controversy has been gaining attention lately from consumers and advertising firms alike. The general consensus is basically it takes two to tango and the tracking companies don’t want to dance. It’s looking more like DNT just will not work as long as it is voluntary and carries no penalty.

“Tracking is happening at a scale and rate we've never seen before.” And your online activities are increasingly being correlated with your offline activity.
 

lilbabycat

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
3,810
It's even easier when every ToS of anything includes "you agree to receive offers... you agree to have your information gathered for..."
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
or you just disable 3rd party cookies, block flash from starting without permission and do not send referrer information that pretty much bars you form most tracking, could also put a HOSTS or PAC file to block common tracking servers as well. Screw getting microsoft's and google's permission, but then again you probably screw your fav websites ads revenue as well, which is why you should configure things per website setting your commonly visited sites as trusted and the default with such settings as above and not use hosts of pac file.
 

ShamisOMally

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 24, 2010
Messages
1,480
Want to fix this?

Easy

Add DNT to the current laws governing "Do not Solicit", where by enabling DNT is the same as being added to the national Do not Solicit laws such as no phone calls/no junk mail etc etc

Sure that will cause -EVERY ONE- of these countries to go oversea's, but at least Apache etc can rightfully fuck off and they'll have to obey states law if they want to be run on servers in america
 

BombermanX

Gawd
Joined
Apr 17, 2004
Messages
617
I have an amazing idea: if you don't want to be tracked, don't go to websites that track you. If you find that subset of the internet enjoyable, feel free to keep to it; there's always usenet.

The internet continues to exist because it's good business. It's a business that requires the ability to discern information about its users and the ability to sell to its users.
 

Terminus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
1,837
I'm with Microsoft on this one.

DO NOT TRACK by default

Don't care if your site makes money by using targeted ads - NOT MY PROBLEM
 

DW-UK

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
1,122
The way that I see it is; Some computer server keeps a data log of the web addresses that you have followed. Then some other computer program later runs through that data log, and sums it up into some supposedly useful information. It is the effective interpretation that the computer program puts on that data log, which counts, and then the usefulness of what effect I get from it.
 

DW-UK

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 27, 2012
Messages
1,122
The way that I see it is; Some computer server keeps a data log of the web addresses that you have followed. Then some other computer program later runs through that data log, and sums it up into some supposedly useful information. It is the effective interpretation that the computer program puts on that data log, which counts, and then the usefulness of what effect I get from it.

Important correction: The computer server keeps a log of the web addresses that another computer program followed. You didn’t follow them. A web browser computer program followed them.
 

SkribbelKat

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
5,330
How is that any better/different for privacy than dynamic addresses in IPv4? It seems like it's the same thing to me.

Because IPv4 robs you of freedom and forces you to be locked into being assigned an IP address to get access to the Internet. It's draconian and the evil people who are judges in the courts are legalizing this terrible theft of my rights!

(Just saving you the trouble of responding dami :p)
 

c3141hf

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,708
How is that any better/different for privacy than dynamic addresses in IPv4? It seems like it's the same thing to me.

1.IPv6 privacy addresses are generated by the client and are stateless. They do not require a renewal or a DHCP server.

2.IPv6 privacy addresses are designed to change on a regular basis. ISP DHCP servers are often set up to lock in an IP address to the MAC address of the requesting NIC.

3.IPv6 networks are much larger in size.
 

vortican

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
146
I have an amazing idea: if you don't want to be tracked, don't go to websites that track you. If you find that subset of the internet enjoyable, feel free to keep to it; there's always usenet.

The internet continues to exist because it's good business. It's a business that requires the ability to discern information about its users and the ability to sell to its users.

Sho nuff.

It's also pretty easy to not mingle your digital life with your physical life. If you're not down with that, maybe you shouldn't be on the intarnets. There's no law against private citizens tracking private citizens once they leave their house. I see no reason why there can't be a voluntary mechanism to control this in browsers, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want cool stuff to be tailored to your interests, of course some tracking is required to get that to happen. As long as one can manage it, the onus is on the individual to do so.
 

GaryJohnson

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
1,053
IPv6 privacy addresses are generated by the client.

I thought part of the address is generated by the client, and the other part - the routing prefix - isn't? Won't you be trackable via your unique routing prefix even if your client generated interface identifier is randomized?
 
Top