It does not protect anyone's privacy unless the recipients believe it was set by a real human being, with a real preference for privacy over personalization
By being set, it protects my privacy as long as "recipients" abide by it without question — it only becomes an issue when "recipients" qualify when they will abide by it.
If active choice is not an option, a default in favour of not tracking seems a better position to me but, then again, I am not an ad network executive.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Saturday September 08, 2012 @09:10AM (#41272773)
The point is, DNT only works, at present, on a voluntary basis. As you say, your stance (privacy by default) is not what any ad company will voluntarily choose -- but as long as only a few users opt-in, it can make sense to roll with it for good PR, and to keep the people who care about privacy placated so they don't agitate for privacy regulations the ad men would have to comply with.
It does not protect anyone's privacy unless the recipients believe it was set by a real human being, with a real preference for privacy over personalization
Yeah, that is bull. The recipients don't care that it's set by a real human being, they care that it's set on a small enough fraction of UAs that the PR is worth more than the value of the data they forgo. The former (for now) satisfies the latter, but if enough people started setting it, it'd still be too many, and they'd start ignoring it.
Now you may (as I do) consider the whole situation laughable, because it by design secures privacy for a few by throwing the masses to the wolves, but that's the system we have, and IE's default breaks the conditions under which that system can continue to exist. There's only three ways it can play out (so long as it's the same voluntary cooperation):
(A) ad networks see IE's market share as "too much", disregard DNT altogether. (B) ad networks see IE's market share as acceptable losses and continue to respect DNT across the board; Firefox etc. eventually copy IE's default; ad networks then disregard DNT altogether. (C) ad networks see IE's market share as "too much", disregard DNT only on IE, nobody copies IE -- at the very least the system continues to work for people who care enough to set DNT on non-IE UAs, and there's the possibility IE switches back to opt-in DNT, after which the ad networks will restore the status quo.
A and B are total losses (of the voluntary scheme; the aftermath may or may not result in new privacy regulations); C maintains the status quo for many users, and has the possibility to return to status quo across the board.
By being set, it protects my privacy as long as "recipients" abide by it without question — it only becomes an issue when "recipients" qualify when they will abide by it.
Oh, come off it. It protects your privacy when those qualifications don't affect you. So don't run IE, and it still protects your privacy. Now if you meant "it protects everyone's privacy as long as "recipients" abide by it without question" , then yes. But since we all know the DNT system is designed to operate by throwing ignorant or apathetic individuals to the wolves, protesting that it doesn't protect everyone's privacy is kinda disingenuous.
I can't believe you haven't been modded as a troll. Has nobody told you how things work around here? You never thanks a person for disagreeing with you. It just isn't done, for fsck's sake. If it catches on you'll ruin Slashdot!
For your A the the ad providers can expect there to be lawsuits right on their tails as soon as they take that path and eventually maybe even regulation.
For your B things will work until everybody copies IE which will happen as soon as everybody else see that they continue to respect IE's DNT and then things will go down the exact same route as A.
For your C when the ad providers that selectively only disregard IE DNT they will most likely be served with big lawsuits from MS and once that happens every o
Yeah, that is bull. The recipients don't care that it's set by a real human being, they care that it's set on a small enough fraction of UAs that the PR is worth more than the value of the data they forgo.
I think you're a bit off saying they don't care at all. The only reason they have to go with the DNT flag is for PR purposes. If their reason to break it is simply that it cuts into their income too much, they don't get any PR benefit. However, if they can break it and say that it was being abused, they can possibly get some benefit for trying at least.
It does not protect anyone's privacy... (Score:5, Informative)
It does not protect anyone's privacy unless the recipients believe it was set by a real human being, with a real preference for privacy over personalization
By being set, it protects my privacy as long as "recipients" abide by it without question — it only becomes an issue when "recipients" qualify when they will abide by it.
If active choice is not an option, a default in favour of not tracking seems a better position to me but, then again, I am not an ad network executive.
Re:It does not protect anyone's privacy... (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is, DNT only works, at present, on a voluntary basis. As you say, your stance (privacy by default) is not what any ad company will voluntarily choose -- but as long as only a few users opt-in, it can make sense to roll with it for good PR, and to keep the people who care about privacy placated so they don't agitate for privacy regulations the ad men would have to comply with.
It does not protect anyone's privacy unless the recipients believe it was set by a real human being, with a real preference for privacy over personalization
Yeah, that is bull. The recipients don't care that it's set by a real human being, they care that it's set on a small enough fraction of UAs that the PR is worth more than the value of the data they forgo. The former (for now) satisfies the latter, but if enough people started setting it, it'd still be too many, and they'd start ignoring it.
Now you may (as I do) consider the whole situation laughable, because it by design secures privacy for a few by throwing the masses to the wolves, but that's the system we have, and IE's default breaks the conditions under which that system can continue to exist. There's only three ways it can play out (so long as it's the same voluntary cooperation):
(A) ad networks see IE's market share as "too much", disregard DNT altogether.
(B) ad networks see IE's market share as acceptable losses and continue to respect DNT across the board; Firefox etc. eventually copy IE's default; ad networks then disregard DNT altogether.
(C) ad networks see IE's market share as "too much", disregard DNT only on IE, nobody copies IE -- at the very least the system continues to work for people who care enough to set DNT on non-IE UAs, and there's the possibility IE switches back to opt-in DNT, after which the ad networks will restore the status quo.
A and B are total losses (of the voluntary scheme; the aftermath may or may not result in new privacy regulations); C maintains the status quo for many users, and has the possibility to return to status quo across the board.
By being set, it protects my privacy as long as "recipients" abide by it without question — it only becomes an issue when "recipients" qualify when they will abide by it.
Oh, come off it. It protects your privacy when those qualifications don't affect you. So don't run IE, and it still protects your privacy. Now if you meant "it protects everyone's privacy as long as "recipients" abide by it without question" , then yes. But since we all know the DNT system is designed to operate by throwing ignorant or apathetic individuals to the wolves, protesting that it doesn't protect everyone's privacy is kinda disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
For your B things will work until everybody copies IE which will happen as soon as everybody else see that they continue to respect IE's DNT and then things will go down the exact same route as A.
For your C when the ad providers that selectively only disregard IE DNT they will most likely be served with big lawsuits from MS and once that happens every o
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, that is bull. The recipients don't care that it's set by a real human being, they care that it's set on a small enough fraction of UAs that the PR is worth more than the value of the data they forgo.
I think you're a bit off saying they don't care at all. The only reason they have to go with the DNT flag is for PR purposes. If their reason to break it is simply that it cuts into their income too much, they don't get any PR benefit. However, if they can break it and say that it was being abused, they can possibly get some benefit for trying at least.
Re: (Score:2)
The former (for now) satisfies the latter, but if enough people started setting it, it'd still be too many, and they'd start ignoring it.
They might not be legally able to do so in EU, but it's only clear cut if the user does indeed explicitly enable it.