It's obvious that its scumbag advertisers and Google (maybe I'm repeating myself here) behind this. They want a way to track every user and all their behaviors. They want things like these to either not exist or be disabled by default. They live for all the user data they can gather. This also means they are available for law enforcement and any other party with interest to gather that data, now and in the future.
It's already starting to bother me. I'm seeing these advertisements here on Slashdot too. After I've searched for something on Google, the related advertisements start to come up EVERYWHERE on the internet. Seriously, they come after you. If you search for specific flights you start to see ads for that everyone. It'll haunt you and there's nothing you can do.
Google already got into trouble over Safari privacy violations [slashdot.org]. Did you know that Safari is currently the only browser that blocks third party blocking cookies like those used by advertising networks (Google)? All the other browsers than Safari and IE are in bed with advertisers because both Firefox and Opera get revenue directly from Google. Chrome of course is the worst because it's designed by the advertising network itself.
You know what's the worst thing? I have a developing case of paranoid schizophrenia [mindreading.me]. The behavioral advertisements are driving me nuts! It's pure hell when you have such case. I have tried to ease me by blocking such things but still Google gets thru something. They literally follow my every step everywhere. Imagine how paranoid you feel when you're already sick. What am I going to do, stop using the internet? That's really nice.
So for the love of god Apache Project, stop taking bribes from Google and doing evil things like this!
Why is Apache doing this? Shouldn't it be up to the webmaster and developers whether to ignore IE10's DNT or not?
Why is Apache doing user agent sniffing(a no no usually for even web apps) and overriding web applications by default? The patch doesn't even give a choice to the webmaster to configure Apache to disable this action. So it's being forced on Apache users because of the ego of the DNT spec writer? Lets say IIS turns on DNT for all browsers, how will Mr. Fielding feel then? Apache is being used as a pawn in this power game and this move will help no one. Let the advertisers ignore DNT from IE10 if they want to, why block DNT flag on at the web server level?
This is not Apache's territory. they should not be doing anything to affect my browsing session. Nothing at all. Period.
And who the hell cares about the digital advertising alliance. They don't dictate anything having to do with advertising on my computers.
What the hell is going on here? These people seem to be violating every tenant of privacy. This makes Apache an outlaw. It's ridiculous to say the least. They say they don't tolerate...., well we should never tolerate their interference.
If you guys are supporting Apache because they are Apache you need to stop and reexamine your position. I don't use IE but all browser makers should be pampering the users not the advertising industry, and the web server manufacturer should never pamper advertisers.
This is not Apache's territory. they should not be doing anything to affect my browsing session. Nothing at all. Period.
Apache isn't doing this. One person has posted a patch. It has not, as I understand it, yet been accepted by the Apache Foundation. Even if it were, Apache HTTPD is by design a highly configurable web server which has modules to do all sorts of things, but on any typical web server only a few of those modules will be enabled. This particular patch - even if it were accepted as part of the distribution - only works if both the 'setenvif' and 'headers' modules are enabled, which, on my servers, is not the case. Furthermore, the 'patch' is five lines in a configuration file; if you don't like 'em, comment them out.
Slow news day, storm in a teacup, nothing to see here, move along.
This is not a storm in a teacup - it is one individual claiming some moral superiority to nail an issue to his liking without any real discussion or consideration, other than him own. How is one to establish whether an Apache server has set this "ignore any browser DNT instruction" any more easily than a user browser's setting of DNT by default? The guy's an ego-driven asshole.
Ad-Block doesn't really help as much as you think. It's blocking ads and cookies, not tracking. Companies have had a long time to learn ways to gather data despite adblock. Install DNT Plus alongside it.
http://www.abine.com/dntdetail.php
My solution is a little extreme, but I have DNScrypt, DNT Plus, Ad-Block, Flash-Block and BetterPrivacy. I also have Collusion just to watch what data I am sharing and with who.
You don't mention this but DNS Crypt is only, officially, supported on Windows and Mac but it can be made to work on GNU/Linux and BSD with a little work. The following site gives the details you would need to do this https://johnfail.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/dnscrypt-for-linux/ [wordpress.com]
You don't have RequestPolicy? Because I'd say the best protection for your privacy is if the corresponding server is not even contacted. All other measures are only bandaids for the case where you cannot avoid contacting the server.
Pretty much, along with cookie blockers. Anyone who doesn't use one on the internet these days is either mad or insane. Perhaps both. I don't care that site users are whining and crying that they're losing revenue, it's stuff like what was mentioned in the article itself(too long to repeat) that ensure that I'm going to keep using them. Plus the long list of abusive ads themselves that like to run with their volume at 11, or inject malware.
I'd be happy with ads, no really. If companies weren't being so stinking abusive over it. I'd call the entire thing an abusive relationship, you even get companies promising "we don't do this, don't worry we've changed." And next time, they're right back to doing it. Sounds familiar doesn't it?
Not just that. Many people don't know that you can get easily infected by a rogue advertisement even being displayed. That alone keeps me using Adblock, even if all of the other factors people name didn't exist.
Pretty much, along with cookie blockers. Anyone who doesn't use one on the internet these days is either mad or insane. Perhaps both. I don't care that site users are whining and crying that they're losing revenue, it's stuff like what was mentioned in the article itself(too long to repeat) that ensure that I'm going to keep using them. Plus the long list of abusive ads themselves that like to run with their volume at 11, or inject malware.
I'd be happy with ads, no really. If companies weren't being so stinking abusive over it. I'd call the entire thing an abusive relationship, you even get companies promising "we don't do this, don't worry we've changed." And next time, they're right back to doing it. Sounds familiar doesn't it?
I don't mind ads if they are in the margins. What I HATE are popups that show up when you slide the mouse across a keyword in a blog or article. These popups are ads that I write off as my subconscious telling me to avoid purchasing that product because a hard sell means an inferior product. The worst are girlie ads that popup while I am reading a technical article or even while reading stuff rom Slashdot.org, The ISP or whoever, creates browser triggers for keywords. I frequently dump cache, cookies, etc.
Just wait till they start hiding under your bed with chainsaws.
Nah, they come in through the skylight [xkcd.com] or on stage at Yale [xkcd.com]. It's common knowledge that under the bed is where Stallman keeps his katana and Linus keeps his nunchucks. Rumor has it RMS also hid a special macro in Emacs which turns your pinky finger into a deadly weapon.
It's in the interest of all its user-base to minimize the number of DNT browsers. Ads fund websites and targeted advertising brings in more revenue for the sites (i would think).
Choosing to ignore a standard is not what they should be doing either.
Choosing to ignore a standard is not what they should be doing either.
To be honest this is kind of a ridiculous standard anyway. The way I read it, it seems to me the sites I would least want to track me are the exact sites that are most likely to ignore DNT completely. This standard reminds me of the Evil Bit RFC. [ietf.org]
Which is why I use ghostery. As far as I can figure out it blocks a crapload of tracking stuff. Drawback is most initial images to Wired articles don't show up, for example.
To be honest this is kind of a ridiculous standard anyway. The way I read it, it seems to me the sites I would least want to track me are the exact sites that are most likely to ignore DNT completely
The problem is DNT has no teeth. There should be some mode of identification and publication of sites that ignore DNT in a blacklist.
And when browsers encounter a site known to ignore DNT, they should refuse to allow redirecting to it, or sourcing content remotely from the site via remote script frames or
It's already starting to bother me. I'm seeing these advertisements here on Slashdot too. After I've searched for something on Google, the related advertisements start to come up EVERYWHERE on the internet. Seriously, they come after you. If you search for specific flights you start to see ads for that everyone. It'll haunt you and there's nothing you can do.
Similarly, you can use the NAI's opt-out page [networkadvertising.org] to opt-out of Google and other ad network tracking.
There's plenty of browser plugins that work to block ads entirely (such as AdBlock) and ones that ensure that the "opt-out" cookies stay in existence even if you clear your other cookies.
All the other browsers than Safari and IE are in bed with advertisers because both Firefox and Opera get revenue directly from Google.
The default search box in those browsers comes configured to use Google, yes. They do get income from ad revenue stemming from searches from the box. You're not forced to use that search box, nor are you forced to use the default settings -- you can add other search providers (like DuckDuckGo, ixquick, etc.) -- Firefox, for one, doesn't have ad agreements with anyone other than Google.
So for the love of god Apache Project, stop taking bribes from Google and doing evil things like this!
Is there evidence that the Apache project is "taking bribes from Google"?
My understanding from the article is that an individual contributed a patch to the the Apache httpd.conf source code and does not reflect the official viewpoint of the Apache Foundation, nor that the patch has been approved for inclusion. Naturally, I welcome any corrections.
I went to NAI's opt out page and tried it. I have Adblock-plus. To get all of them, you have to turn off Adblock-Plus, hit the "all of them" button, and then re-enable. Otherwise, you only get 50-some-odd out of 95.
Is this some perverted new-age sense of protection where you are basically pleading to the offender to not track you by giving him a cookie with identifying information?
Informational self-awareness seems to be seriously lacking these days.
IF you don't want to be tracked, & to get your speed/bandwidth back you paid for (as well as electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well), better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", reliability (vs. DNS poisoning redirection OR being "downed"), & even anonymity (to an extent vs. DNS request logs) + being able to "blow by" what you may feel are unjust blocks (in DNSBL's) & more...
Instead of being a troll, disprove his points on hosts files here http://apache.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3102597&cid=41279713 [slashdot.org] . Oh, that's right: You tried it before and failed, hence your anonymous coward trolling instead! Which only shows us you have failed miserably before vs. apk and probably mostly on trying to disprove apk's points on the benefits of custom hosts files, since no one ever does or can.
You can't to either item in my subject. You're an off topic troll that's unable to disprove APK's points on hosts files here http://apache.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3102597&cid=41279713 [slashdot.org] and that makes you laughable. No wonder you troll others as anonymous coward. You're exactly that. I know it. You know it. Anybody reading knows it, lol.
wouldn't matter if it was apk since you ran from this http://apache.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3102597&cid=41287063 [slashdot.org] beyotch. You stalk apk around this forums like some geek angst ridden loon and you are forced to run like the wuss you are from a simple challenge of disproving apk's points on hosts files every time you do so. What a feeble loser you are.
* Go on now ac troll that "stalks" me like some online sicko... disprove my points on the benefits of custom hosts files, enumerated in the link the link above points to, in 15 points for better:
* How a worm like you can live with yourself is beyond me... lol, and the way you avoided my question of WHY you stalk me on/., as well as how you run from disproving my points on hosts files? Utterly hilarious... I can make you "dance" easily, everytime, with the same approach to your stalking myself... lol!
APK
P.S.=> As to your question? LOL, not @ all - Most especially when all you have is
Also FYI, I typoed the URL for Google's ad preferences. Here is the correct URL: http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/ [google.com] -- I left off the "s" at the end of "preferences". Mea culpa.
While I agree with your sentiment I have seen where this patch is referred to as a patch against "source code";in your post and even (from the article page comments) "core source code" and I disagree with that. This is a *configuration file* patch. I don't know of anyone other than a home user trying Apache for the first time who uses the default configuration file; not to mention this patch is not even approved by or included with Apache (yet).
This may be an argument in semantics but it seems to me a true source code patch (ie. one in which once the server is compiled no configuration option will allow a setting one way or the other) is much more worrisome than a simple configuration change.
From what I am reading, unless/until this patch is included with Apache by default, this is really a non-issue. Someone who wants to ignore DNT can do it. Someone who wants to honor it can do so as well. This choice is left up to the company that is using the software (and believe me, even if DNT was hard-coded into the source code, sites that don't want to honor it would simply patch Apache internally). As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, DNT reminds me of the "Evil Bit" RFC.
You're not forced to use the search box or the default settings, but I recently found an annoying feature in Opera. When I start typing something in the address field Opera would automatically offer me search suggestions from Google. I'm not sure I'd like this feature be on by default, but I didn't even find a setting for turning it off. Editing Opera's search.ini manually solved the issue for me, although I'm not sure if you can achieve the same thing by deleting Google from your list of search engines and
Preferences -> Search -> "Use suggestions..." checkbox under the list. AFAICT from my install, it still allows for search suggestions when you use keyword, i.e. when you start typing "g keyword" it gives you googles' suggestions and when you type "w keyword" it gives you wikipedia's suggestions.
Google and every other advertiser know that, when given the choice to opt in on something, you likely won't. I could type a wall of text, but if you have a few minutes you could watch this TED talk about opt-in vs opt-out.
To sum up: you are not really in control of your decisions
Google and every other advertiser know that, when given the choice to opt in on something, you likely won't. I could type a wall of text, but if you have a few minutes you could watch this TED talk about opt-in vs opt-out.
To sum up: you are not really in control of your decisions
The talk albeit interesting in actually irrelevant to this discussion. opt-in and opt-out are discussed, but only in the instance where complex decisions have to be made [organ transplants after death], and spoiler! they go with the option of least resistance. Which is vastly different for a trial choice everyone would make [if they knew was there; knew how to change it; had the confidence to change it], because nobody likes advertisement.
Similarly, you can use the NAI's opt-out page [networkadvertising.org] to opt-out of Google and other ad network tracking.
I went to that page - it told me I had to turn on third-party cookies to use its functionality. Nice try!
I'm pretty sure not allowing third-party cookies largely solves the problem already. I've also got Firefox set to "ask me every time" whenever someone wants to set a cookie - yeah, it was a pain for the first few weeks, but I think it's worth it.
I've also got Firefox set to "ask me every time" whenever someone wants to set a cookie - yeah, it was a pain for the first few weeks, but I think it's worth it.
Similarly, you can use the NAI's opt-out page [networkadvertising.org] to opt-out of Google and other ad network tracking.
I went to that page - it told me I had to turn on third-party cookies to use its functionality. Nice try!
I'm pretty sure not allowing third-party cookies largely solves the problem already. I've also got Firefox set to "ask me every time" whenever someone wants to set a cookie - yeah, it was a pain for the first few weeks, but I think it's worth it.
So what happens if a company proxies the third-party cookies through their own site and turns them into first-party cookies?
Advertisers can develop just as many hacks to deliver as as people can create hacks to stop advertisers.
IF you don't want to be tracked, & to get your speed/bandwidth back you paid for (as well as electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well), better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", reliability (vs. DNS poisoning redirection OR being "downed"), & even anonymity (to an extent vs. DNS request logs) + being able to "blow by" what you may feel are unjust blocks (in DNSBL's) & more...
Well the "do not track" really shouldn't be enbled by default, anymore than a DVR should skip over TV ads by default. The courts have already ruled DVR makers may not do auto-ad-skip, because it's the same as stealing copyrighted TV broadcast. Ads can still be skipped but only if initiated by the customer.
Personally I like the ads. They give me free TV, free radio, and free internet. Plus they are easy-to-ignore; most of the time I don't even see them.
Wow, +5 for a shill account with one paranoid delusional comment.
1) It's not obvious that Google is behind this. Roy Fielding, the man responsible for it, works for Adobe.
2) If Roy Fielding were a sock puppet for Google, and Google would prefer DNT not to exist at all, then he probably wouldn't have made DNT in the first place.
How did a post from an obvious Microsoft shill received +5 Interesting moderation?
Signs for a Microsoft shill: - Very long first post - The only post by the user ever (rarely followed by one-two additional responses) - Very clear and strong anti-Google or pro-Microsoft message
We really want the shill to get away from Slashdot (maybe the company management doesn't, but the users do). Moderators, please always recognize the shills before modding up, and mod them down into oblivion. We also need a new moderation: -
Don't allow newly created user accounts to be modded higher than +2 for the first 7 days or say after 20 posts. Maybe put a reminder next to the username that the user is a new user so others will know in casual browsing. There are some downsides to these concepts but it would weed out a lot of deception and shilling as well and people constantly creating new accounts to hide an agenda.
Something fishy is going on, the obvious shill is modded up, while any attempt to object is immediately labelled as trolling. I guess it's time to move on from shillsdot.org to some other place.
It's optimistic of me, but did you read the original? DNT is an opt-in, and if companies like Microsoft set it to be an opt-out, then the likelihood is advertisers will ignore it. IMO a lot will, anyway, but this doesn't help.
This data makes it more convenient for the consumer (us) to get what we want. I have no problem with it because how would they use this against me anyway. It's not an annoyance to me and it has more chance of helping me, rather than doing harm so go Google.
"The C Programming Language -- A language which combines the flexibility of
assembly language with the power of assembly language."
Gee, How Much Google Paid For This (Score:2, Interesting)
It's already starting to bother me. I'm seeing these advertisements here on Slashdot too. After I've searched for something on Google, the related advertisements start to come up EVERYWHERE on the internet. Seriously, they come after you. If you search for specific flights you start to see ads for that everyone. It'll haunt you and there's nothing you can do.
Google already got into trouble over Safari privacy violations [slashdot.org]. Did you know that Safari is currently the only browser that blocks third party blocking cookies like those used by advertising networks (Google)? All the other browsers than Safari and IE are in bed with advertisers because both Firefox and Opera get revenue directly from Google. Chrome of course is the worst because it's designed by the advertising network itself.
You know what's the worst thing? I have a developing case of paranoid schizophrenia [mindreading.me]. The behavioral advertisements are driving me nuts! It's pure hell when you have such case. I have tried to ease me by blocking such things but still Google gets thru something. They literally follow my every step everywhere. Imagine how paranoid you feel when you're already sick. What am I going to do, stop using the internet? That's really nice.
So for the love of god Apache Project, stop taking bribes from Google and doing evil things like this!
Re: (Score:1)
I agree, but they won't change so I use dnsmasq:
address=/doubleclick.net/192.168.10.1
address=/google-analytics.com/192.168.10.1
Re:Gee, How Much Google Paid For This (Score:5, Insightful)
Ad-block FTW
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What has Apache got to do with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is Apache doing this? Shouldn't it be up to the webmaster and developers whether to ignore IE10's DNT or not?
Why is Apache doing user agent sniffing(a no no usually for even web apps) and overriding web applications by default? The patch doesn't even give a choice to the webmaster to configure Apache to disable this action. So it's being forced on Apache users because of the ego of the DNT spec writer? Lets say IIS turns on DNT for all browsers, how will Mr. Fielding feel then? Apache is being used as a pawn in this power game and this move will help no one. Let the advertisers ignore DNT from IE10 if they want to, why block DNT flag on at the web server level?
Re:What has Apache got to do with this? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not Apache's territory. they should not be doing anything to affect my browsing session. Nothing at all. Period.
And who the hell cares about the digital advertising alliance. They don't dictate anything having to do with advertising on my computers.
What the hell is going on here? These people seem to be violating every tenant of privacy. This makes Apache an outlaw. It's ridiculous to say the least. They say they don't tolerate...., well we should never tolerate their interference.
If you guys are supporting Apache because they are Apache you need to stop and reexamine your position. I don't use IE but all browser makers should be pampering the users not the advertising industry, and the web server manufacturer should never pamper advertisers.
tenet (Score:0)
tenet
Re:What has Apache got to do with this? (Score:5, Informative)
This is not Apache's territory. they should not be doing anything to affect my browsing session. Nothing at all. Period.
Apache isn't doing this. One person has posted a patch. It has not, as I understand it, yet been accepted by the Apache Foundation. Even if it were, Apache HTTPD is by design a highly configurable web server which has modules to do all sorts of things, but on any typical web server only a few of those modules will be enabled. This particular patch - even if it were accepted as part of the distribution - only works if both the 'setenvif' and 'headers' modules are enabled, which, on my servers, is not the case. Furthermore, the 'patch' is five lines in a configuration file; if you don't like 'em, comment them out.
Slow news day, storm in a teacup, nothing to see here, move along.
Re: (Score:0)
This is not a storm in a teacup - it is one individual claiming some moral superiority to nail an issue to his liking without any real discussion or consideration, other than him own. How is one to establish whether an Apache server has set this "ignore any browser DNT instruction" any more easily than a user browser's setting of DNT by default? The guy's an ego-driven asshole.
Re: (Score:0)
Ad-Block doesn't really help as much as you think. It's blocking ads and cookies, not tracking. Companies have had a long time to learn ways to gather data despite adblock. Install DNT Plus alongside it.
http://www.abine.com/dntdetail.php
My solution is a little extreme, but I have DNScrypt, DNT Plus, Ad-Block, Flash-Block and BetterPrivacy. I also have Collusion just to watch what data I am sharing and with who.
Re:Gee, How Much Google Paid For This (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:0)
I never thought to do it for my linux box. Thanks.
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
with who.
It's "whom." Go back to school.
Re: (Score:0)
I realized that after I hit post. Thanks anyway, Comrade!
Re: (Score:0)
Go back to school.
Yes, the world needs more english majors.
Re: (Score:0)
Why not RequestPolicy? Or are you implementing those features in your firewall(s)?
Re: (Score:1)
You don't have RequestPolicy? Because I'd say the best protection for your privacy is if the corresponding server is not even contacted. All other measures are only bandaids for the case where you cannot avoid contacting the server.
Re:Gee, How Much Google Paid For This (Score:5, Insightful)
Ad-block FTW
Pretty much, along with cookie blockers. Anyone who doesn't use one on the internet these days is either mad or insane. Perhaps both. I don't care that site users are whining and crying that they're losing revenue, it's stuff like what was mentioned in the article itself(too long to repeat) that ensure that I'm going to keep using them. Plus the long list of abusive ads themselves that like to run with their volume at 11, or inject malware.
I'd be happy with ads, no really. If companies weren't being so stinking abusive over it. I'd call the entire thing an abusive relationship, you even get companies promising "we don't do this, don't worry we've changed." And next time, they're right back to doing it. Sounds familiar doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Not just that. Many people don't know that you can get easily infected by a rogue advertisement even being displayed. That alone keeps me using Adblock, even if all of the other factors people name didn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Ad-block FTW
Pretty much, along with cookie blockers. Anyone who doesn't use one on the internet these days is either mad or insane. Perhaps both. I don't care that site users are whining and crying that they're losing revenue, it's stuff like what was mentioned in the article itself(too long to repeat) that ensure that I'm going to keep using them. Plus the long list of abusive ads themselves that like to run with their volume at 11, or inject malware.
I'd be happy with ads, no really. If companies weren't being so stinking abusive over it. I'd call the entire thing an abusive relationship, you even get companies promising "we don't do this, don't worry we've changed." And next time, they're right back to doing it. Sounds familiar doesn't it?
I don't mind ads if they are in the margins. What I HATE are popups that show up when you slide the mouse across a keyword in a blog or article. These popups are ads that I write off as my subconscious telling me to avoid purchasing that product because a hard sell means an inferior product.
The worst are girlie ads that popup while I am reading a technical article or even while reading stuff rom Slashdot.org, The ISP or whoever, creates browser triggers for keywords. I frequently dump cache, cookies, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just wait till they start hiding under your bed with chainsaws.
Re: (Score:3)
Just wait till they start hiding under your bed with chainsaws.
Nah, they come in through the skylight [xkcd.com] or on stage at Yale [xkcd.com]. It's common knowledge that under the bed is where Stallman keeps his katana and Linus keeps his nunchucks. Rumor has it RMS also hid a special macro in Emacs which turns your pinky finger into a deadly weapon.
Re: (Score:3)
It's common knowledge that under the bed is where Stallman keeps his katana and Linus keeps his nunchucks.
The same bed? :O
Re: (Score:2)
It's in the interest of all its user-base to minimize the number of DNT browsers. Ads fund websites and targeted advertising brings in more revenue for the sites (i would think).
Choosing to ignore a standard is not what they should be doing either.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a standard for what exactly? If it's not about communicating user tracking preferences it serves no more function than COPPA age checks.
Re:Gee, How Much Google Paid For This (Score:5, Insightful)
To be honest this is kind of a ridiculous standard anyway. The way I read it, it seems to me the sites I would least want to track me are the exact sites that are most likely to ignore DNT completely. This standard reminds me of the Evil Bit RFC. [ietf.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I use ghostery. As far as I can figure out it blocks a crapload of tracking stuff. Drawback is most initial images to Wired articles don't show up, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest this is kind of a ridiculous standard anyway. The way I read it, it seems to me the sites I would least want to track me are the exact sites that are most likely to ignore DNT completely
The problem is DNT has no teeth. There should be some mode of identification and publication of sites that ignore DNT in a blacklist.
And when browsers encounter a site known to ignore DNT, they should refuse to allow redirecting to it, or sourcing content remotely from the site via remote script frames or
Re:Gee, How Much Google Paid For This (Score:5, Informative)
It's already starting to bother me. I'm seeing these advertisements here on Slashdot too. After I've searched for something on Google, the related advertisements start to come up EVERYWHERE on the internet. Seriously, they come after you. If you search for specific flights you start to see ads for that everyone. It'll haunt you and there's nothing you can do.
Not true: you can change your Google Ad Preferences [google.com] or opt-out.
Similarly, you can use the NAI's opt-out page [networkadvertising.org] to opt-out of Google and other ad network tracking.
There's plenty of browser plugins that work to block ads entirely (such as AdBlock) and ones that ensure that the "opt-out" cookies stay in existence even if you clear your other cookies.
All the other browsers than Safari and IE are in bed with advertisers because both Firefox and Opera get revenue directly from Google.
The default search box in those browsers comes configured to use Google, yes. They do get income from ad revenue stemming from searches from the box. You're not forced to use that search box, nor are you forced to use the default settings -- you can add other search providers (like DuckDuckGo, ixquick, etc.) -- Firefox, for one, doesn't have ad agreements with anyone other than Google.
So for the love of god Apache Project, stop taking bribes from Google and doing evil things like this!
Is there evidence that the Apache project is "taking bribes from Google"?
My understanding from the article is that an individual contributed a patch to the the Apache httpd.conf source code and does not reflect the official viewpoint of the Apache Foundation, nor that the patch has been approved for inclusion. Naturally, I welcome any corrections.
Re:Gee, How Much Google Paid For This (Score:5, Informative)
Just a FYI.
I went to NAI's opt out page and tried it. I have Adblock-plus. To get all of them, you have to turn off Adblock-Plus, hit the "all of them" button, and then re-enable. Otherwise, you only get 50-some-odd out of 95.
--
BMO
Also install the NAI Keep My Opt-Outs plugin (Score:2)
The more protection the better!
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hhnjdplhmcnkiecampfdgfjilccfpfoe?hl=en [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Is this some perverted new-age sense of protection where you are basically pleading to the offender to not track you by giving him a cookie with identifying information?
Informational self-awareness seems to be seriously lacking these days.
This is BETTER than AdBlock (by FAR)... apk (Score:0)
IF you don't want to be tracked, & to get your speed/bandwidth back you paid for (as well as electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well), better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", reliability (vs. DNS poisoning redirection OR being "downed"), & even anonymity (to an extent vs. DNS request logs) + being able to "blow by" what you may feel are unjust blocks (in DNSBL's) & more...
---
APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32-bit & 64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_conte [start64.com]
Re: (Score:0)
Seriously? All of this AND more AND etc. on top of that? Do you have a newsletter?
Don't you have anything better to do? (Score:0)
Instead of being a troll, disprove his points on hosts files here http://apache.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3102597&cid=41279713 [slashdot.org] . Oh, that's right: You tried it before and failed, hence your anonymous coward trolling instead! Which only shows us you have failed miserably before vs. apk and probably mostly on trying to disprove apk's points on the benefits of custom hosts files, since no one ever does or can.
Re: (Score:0)
Everyone knows it's you, Peter.
Speaking of yourself in the third person could be viewed as mentally ill, don't you know?
Prove it's not you.
Prove I am APK. Disprove APK's points on hosts (Score:0)
You can't to either item in my subject. You're an off topic troll that's unable to disprove APK's points on hosts files here http://apache.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3102597&cid=41279713 [slashdot.org] and that makes you laughable. No wonder you troll others as anonymous coward. You're exactly that. I know it. You know it. Anybody reading knows it, lol.
Re: (Score:0)
wouldn't matter if it was apk since you ran from this http://apache.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3102597&cid=41287063 [slashdot.org] beyotch. You stalk apk around this forums like some geek angst ridden loon and you are forced to run like the wuss you are from a simple challenge of disproving apk's points on hosts files every time you do so. What a feeble loser you are.
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!", lmao... apk (Score:0)
http://apache.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3102597&cid=41287063 [slashdot.org]
* Go on now ac troll that "stalks" me like some online sicko... disprove my points on the benefits of custom hosts files, enumerated in the link the link above points to, in 15 points for better:
1.) Speed/Bandwidth
2.) "Layered-Security"/"Defense-in-Depth"
3.) Reliability
4.) Anonymity
5.) and more...
(Face it, ac troll - You can't, and, you KNOW it... lol!)
APK
P.S.=> What's the matter, "wally"? Running scared from a SIMPLE CHALLENGE you can
Re: (Score:0)
U mad?
U run like a coward? Yes... apk (Score:0)
ROTFLMAO: "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" -> http://apache.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3102597&cid=41288967 [slashdot.org]
* How a worm like you can live with yourself is beyond me... lol, and the way you avoided my question of WHY you stalk me on /., as well as how you run from disproving my points on hosts files? Utterly hilarious... I can make you "dance" easily, everytime, with the same approach to your stalking myself... lol!
APK
P.S.=> As to your question? LOL, not @ all - Most especially when all you have is
Re: (Score:3)
Also FYI, I typoed the URL for Google's ad preferences. Here is the correct URL: http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/ [google.com] -- I left off the "s" at the end of "preferences". Mea culpa.
Re: (Score:0)
Oops... Missed this post. Apologies!
Re:Gee, How Much Google Paid For This (Score:4, Informative)
This may be an argument in semantics but it seems to me a true source code patch (ie. one in which once the server is compiled no configuration option will allow a setting one way or the other) is much more worrisome than a simple configuration change.
From what I am reading, unless/until this patch is included with Apache by default, this is really a non-issue. Someone who wants to ignore DNT can do it. Someone who wants to honor it can do so as well. This choice is left up to the company that is using the software (and believe me, even if DNT was hard-coded into the source code, sites that don't want to honor it would simply patch Apache internally). As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, DNT reminds me of the "Evil Bit" RFC.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:0)
Preferences -> Search -> "Use suggestions..." checkbox under the list. AFAICT from my install, it still allows for search suggestions when you use keyword, i.e. when you start typing "g keyword" it gives you googles' suggestions and when you type "w keyword" it gives you wikipedia's suggestions.
Re:Gee, How Much Google Paid For This (Score:4, Interesting)
Google and every other advertiser know that, when given the choice to opt in on something, you likely won't. I could type a wall of text, but if you have a few minutes you could watch this TED talk about opt-in vs opt-out.
To sum up: you are not really in control of your decisions
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html [ted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Google and every other advertiser know that, when given the choice to opt in on something, you likely won't. I could type a wall of text, but if you have a few minutes you could watch this TED talk about opt-in vs opt-out.
To sum up: you are not really in control of your decisions
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html [ted.com]
The talk albeit interesting in actually irrelevant to this discussion. opt-in and opt-out are discussed, but only in the instance where complex decisions have to be made [organ transplants after death], and spoiler! they go with the option of least resistance. Which is vastly different for a trial choice everyone would make [if they knew was there; knew how to change it; had the confidence to change it], because nobody likes advertisement.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, you can use the NAI's opt-out page [networkadvertising.org] to opt-out of Google and other ad network tracking.
I went to that page - it told me I had to turn on third-party cookies to use its functionality. Nice try!
I'm pretty sure not allowing third-party cookies largely solves the problem already. I've also got Firefox set to "ask me every time" whenever someone wants to set a cookie - yeah, it was a pain for the first few weeks, but I think it's worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en/firefox/addon/cookie-monster/ [mozilla.org]
Love it.
Re: (Score:3)
Similarly, you can use the NAI's opt-out page [networkadvertising.org] to opt-out of Google and other ad network tracking.
I went to that page - it told me I had to turn on third-party cookies to use its functionality. Nice try!
I'm pretty sure not allowing third-party cookies largely solves the problem already. I've also got Firefox set to "ask me every time" whenever someone wants to set a cookie - yeah, it was a pain for the first few weeks, but I think it's worth it.
So what happens if a company proxies the third-party cookies through their own site and turns them into first-party cookies?
Advertisers can develop just as many hacks to deliver as as people can create hacks to stop advertisers.
What, you thought HTML5 was just for kicks?
Re: (Score:2)
What does HTML5 have to do with this?
Re: (Score:2)
What does HTML5 have to do with this?
HTML5 includes a scripting functionality, based on JavaScript IIRCC.
Re: (Score:2)
The only scripting functionality in HTML5 is the same as HTML has had since Netscape introduced JavaScript in '95. There's nothing new there. You can see for yourself: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/scripting-1.html [whatwg.org]
It's true that HTML5 includes a scripting functionality, but it's like saying that the new Volvo has a steering wheel.
This is better than AdBlock by FAR... apk (Score:0)
IF you don't want to be tracked, & to get your speed/bandwidth back you paid for (as well as electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well), better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", reliability (vs. DNS poisoning redirection OR being "downed"), & even anonymity (to an extent vs. DNS request logs) + being able to "blow by" what you may feel are unjust blocks (in DNSBL's) & more...
---
APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32-bit & 64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_conte [start64.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing about opt-out is that you have to give them information in the form of a cookie, i.e. the exact opposite of what you normally want.
Only blocking is responsible self-defense. Communicating with trackers is stupid.
Re: (Score:0)
Not true: you can change your Google Ad Preferences [google.com] or opt-out.
Ummm... Link broken: "404. That’s an error. The requested URL /ads/preference was not found on this server. That’s all we know."
Some of Google's ad people must subscribe to /. :)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Including:
Better Business Bureau
Association of the United States Army
AllState Insurance
Forbes
Microsoft (ironic)
Re: (Score:0)
as AC due to modding. but why are we positively modding an obvious shill?
Re: (Score:1)
Well the "do not track" really shouldn't be enbled by default, anymore than a DVR should skip over TV ads by default. The courts have already ruled DVR makers may not do auto-ad-skip, because it's the same as stealing copyrighted TV broadcast. Ads can still be skipped but only if initiated by the customer.
Personally I like the ads. They give me free TV, free radio, and free internet. Plus they are easy-to-ignore; most of the time I don't even see them.
Re: (Score:3)
DVR makers may not do auto-ad-skip, because it's the same as stealing copyrighted TV broadcast
Er, what? The broadcast is available to everyone, no matter if you asked for it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
The courts have already ruled DVR makers may not do auto-ad-skip, because it's the same as stealing copyrighted TV broadcast.
Citation Needed
Re: (Score:-1)
We really need "-1 Microsoft Shill" moderation.
Re:Gee, How Much Google Paid For This (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, +5 for a shill account with one paranoid delusional comment.
1) It's not obvious that Google is behind this. Roy Fielding, the man responsible for it, works for Adobe.
2) If Roy Fielding were a sock puppet for Google, and Google would prefer DNT not to exist at all, then he probably wouldn't have made DNT in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they certainly had resources enough to game me.
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
How did a post from an obvious Microsoft shill received +5 Interesting moderation?
Signs for a Microsoft shill:
- Very long first post
- The only post by the user ever (rarely followed by one-two additional responses)
- Very clear and strong anti-Google or pro-Microsoft message
We really want the shill to get away from Slashdot (maybe the company management doesn't, but the users do).
Moderators, please always recognize the shills before modding up, and mod them down into oblivion.
We also need a new moderation: -
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't allow newly created user accounts to be modded higher than +2 for the first 7 days or say after 20 posts. Maybe put a reminder next to the username that the user is a new user so others will know in casual browsing. There are some downsides to these concepts but it would weed out a lot of deception and shilling as well and people constantly creating new accounts to hide an agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
The most important sign: huge message posted at the exact same minute as the story.
Seriously people, are you blind?
Re: (Score:2)
Something fishy is going on, the obvious shill is modded up, while any attempt to object is immediately labelled as trolling.
I guess it's time to move on from shillsdot.org to some other place.
Re: (Score:0)
Have a look at NoScript. You're gonna love it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You know what's the worst thing? I have a developing case of paranoid schizophrenia.
The good news is your slashdot karma will improve dramatically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:0)
This data makes it more convenient for the consumer (us) to get what we want. I have no problem with it because how would they use this against me anyway. It's not an annoyance to me and it has more chance of helping me, rather than doing harm so go Google.