Ignoring the issue around if IE10 should set the DNT flag by default or not, this patch only makes the situation worse.
With this patch, even if the user has explicitly chosen to set the DNT flag, the server will ignore it. They claim this patch has to be done because IE 10 ignores part of the spec:
"Key to that notion of expression is that it must reflect the user's preference, not the preference of some institutional or network-imposed mechanism outside the user's control."
This patch however also ignores this same element of the spec, in that no matter what the user may or may not of done, there will be a "mechanism outside the user's control" (the Apache server) which decides on what they want the preference to be.
I do agree that the DNT setting should be a user choice, perhaps given when the user first installs the browser as well as having the option to change it at any time, but to me this is not the right response to having a default set - although I'm sure if the default setting was that tracking was allowed, the add people would for some reason not be complaining about having a default...
This patch however also ignores this same element of the spec, in that no matter what the user may or may not of done, there will be a "mechanism outside the user's control" (the Apache server) which decides on what they want the preference to be.
DNT is purely advisory. Advertisers who want to ignore it are going to configure their servers to do so. If it is too hard to do so with Apache they'll use somthing else.
Advertisers and sites that depend on them don't want to admit that choosing to use a certain browser and allowing itts default settings *is* a choice. They are also free to request the user to turn DNT off before they serve up key features.
They apparently *really* don't like the idea of having to explicitly ask, "can I follow you wherever you go after this"?
When that browser is bundled with the OS installed on 95% of all PCs, it's not a choice at all - it's indifference. Complete, total indifference.
I don't necessarily disagree with your point. I guess my thought is that who are the advertisers to say for sure what I am and am not choosing? If the f-ing DNT header is there, respect it. If you don't like it being there, notify the customer that their client is indicating they don't wish to be tracked, and offer steps to turn that off.
I think the "trackers" out there are just absolutely terrified of having to make what they do explicit to the average end user. They want the "indifferent" option to be tot
This kind of resistance is going to be remembered down the line, when watchdog groups find instances of companies failing to respect DNT headers. If enough of a pattern is found, the "trackers" will need to be able to prove to Congress that they can do the right thing without it getting legislated to them.
Why in the world would they need to do that? I thought this was a free country.
A conference is a gathering of important people who singly can do nothing
but together can decide that nothing can be done.
-- Fred Allen
Two wrongs do not make a right (Score:5, Insightful)
With this patch, even if the user has explicitly chosen to set the DNT flag, the server will ignore it. They claim this patch has to be done because IE 10 ignores part of the spec:
"Key to that notion of expression is that it must reflect the user's preference, not the preference of some institutional or network-imposed mechanism outside the user's control."
This patch however also ignores this same element of the spec, in that no matter what the user may or may not of done, there will be a "mechanism outside the user's control" (the Apache server) which decides on what they want the preference to be.
I do agree that the DNT setting should be a user choice, perhaps given when the user first installs the browser as well as having the option to change it at any time, but to me this is not the right response to having a default set - although I'm sure if the default setting was that tracking was allowed, the add people would for some reason not be complaining about having a default...
Re: (Score:3)
DNT is purely advisory. Advertisers who want to ignore it are going to configure their servers to do so. If it is too hard to do so with Apache they'll use somthing else.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Two wrongs do not make a right (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Advertisers and sites that depend on them don't want to admit that choosing to use a certain browser and allowing itts default settings *is* a choice.
When that browser is bundled with the OS installed on 95% of all PCs, it's not a choice at all - it's indifference. Complete, total indifference.
Re: (Score:1)
When that browser is bundled with the OS installed on 95% of all PCs, it's not a choice at all - it's indifference. Complete, total indifference.
I don't necessarily disagree with your point. I guess my thought is that who are the advertisers to say for sure what I am and am not choosing? If the f-ing DNT header is there, respect it. If you don't like it being there, notify the customer that their client is indicating they don't wish to be tracked, and offer steps to turn that off.
I think the "trackers" out there are just absolutely terrified of having to make what they do explicit to the average end user. They want the "indifferent" option to be tot
Re: (Score:1)
I don't necessarily disagree with your point. I guess my thought is that who are the advertisers to say for sure what I am and am not choosing?
Oops. Need to check if I'm logged in when I comment. Above comment I'm replying to here was mine.
Re: (Score:1)
This kind of resistance is going to be remembered down the line, when watchdog groups find instances of companies failing to respect DNT headers. If enough of a pattern is found, the "trackers" will need to be able to prove to Congress that they can do the right thing without it getting legislated to them.
Why in the world would they need to do that? I thought this was a free country.