Microsoft sticks to its guns, keeps Do Not Track on by default in IE10
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I just refuse to buy anything from a company that stalks me after visiting their site only once. If they have that much money to spend on advertising, obviously I'm not getting a good deal.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Easy workaround:
Have no default value. Instead, when the application is launched for the first time, it checks it's privacy setting. If no setting exists (DNT == Null), open a dialog box explicitly requesting that the user set their privacy options. Click here to allow advertisers you don't know and browser exploits to see your personal information. Click here if you understand that the internet is not a safe place and would rather not give advertisers the list of the last five porn sites you've visited recently.
I disagree that this is disastrous for advertising. Just like brain-eating paramecia, they'll find a way. There will always be that 10% who allows the tracking to happen.
Have no default value. Instead, when the application is launched for the first time, it checks it's privacy setting. If no setting exists (DNT == Null), open a dialog box explicitly requesting that the user set their privacy options. Click here to allow advertisers you don't know and browser exploits to see your personal information. Click here if you understand that the internet is not a safe place and would rather not give advertisers the list of the last five porn sites you've visited recently.
I disagree that this is disastrous for advertising. Just like brain-eating paramecia, they'll find a way. There will always be that 10% who allows the tracking to happen.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I am in two minds here, because on one hand I appreciate being able to use lots of Web services without paying for them (except in terms of exposure to advertising); and on the other I generally prefer businesses being paid for providing a good product, rather than being paid for providing advertising space.
In the end I'd fall on MS' side here, because it's not as though advertisers won't be able to show ads - they'll just be less targetted, and based on explicit agreement by the user to be tracked by that particular service. I don't mind YouTube knowing what I watch, as it sometimes shows me relevant videos and occasionally an interesting ad. But that's linked to my activity on YouTube's own website and servers, not statistics delivered by my browser history.
In the end I'd fall on MS' side here, because it's not as though advertisers won't be able to show ads - they'll just be less targetted, and based on explicit agreement by the user to be tracked by that particular service. I don't mind YouTube knowing what I watch, as it sometimes shows me relevant videos and occasionally an interesting ad. But that's linked to my activity on YouTube's own website and servers, not statistics delivered by my browser history.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Defaulting to "do not track" is sensible. My assumption is the majority of users do not want to be tracked for marketing purposes. Isn't that everyone's assumption, honestly?
"But then the advertisers won't honor it."
There's never been a promise any advertiser would honor DNT. It's nothing but a feel-good button.
Besides, why even suggest that the less technically-savvy should suffer when your intention is to opt out and let the ignorant majority be farmed by Google et al?
Unfortunately, web privacy is going to require some legislative teeth. I applaud Microsoft for forcing the issue.
"But then the advertisers won't honor it."
There's never been a promise any advertiser would honor DNT. It's nothing but a feel-good button.
Besides, why even suggest that the less technically-savvy should suffer when your intention is to opt out and let the ignorant majority be farmed by Google et al?
Unfortunately, web privacy is going to require some legislative teeth. I applaud Microsoft for forcing the issue.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
If MS had just forced a user choice on first launch, the advertisers would be gnashing teeth over that instead. This way, when inevitably the choice is rolled back to that more obvious position, the advertisers will be forced to concede the compromise. At least, I hope that's the strategy.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
There goes DNT...
While I think DNT is a good idea, I think as long as it's voluntary it will be irrelevant because of this decision by Microsoft. Really, the problem is lack of understanding, you'll be tracked when you log on the net by the Gov., a third party advertiser, or the site itself. Tracking tech has matured to the of constant capability to access the private information of a citizen. Simply asking anyone to not do something is generally a futile effort and the advertising industry would simply work around it.
While I think DNT is a good idea, I think as long as it's voluntary it will be irrelevant because of this decision by Microsoft. Really, the problem is lack of understanding, you'll be tracked when you log on the net by the Gov., a third party advertiser, or the site itself. Tracking tech has matured to the of constant capability to access the private information of a citizen. Simply asking anyone to not do something is generally a futile effort and the advertising industry would simply work around it.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The only beef I have with MS's decision is that it's taken because it's going to hurt Google More than it will ever hurt them. If it were to backfire by being ignored that would just be plain silly. Reminds me of the unintended consequence of the Kony 2012 campaign...
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Just for once, good for MS. Stick with the DNT default. Let the advertisers object and opt out.
Then bring the legislative Hammer of God down on them.
(Not that I have any intention of using IE, but bringing the Hammer of God down on advertisers is just a good general principle.)
Then bring the legislative Hammer of God down on them.
(Not that I have any intention of using IE, but bringing the Hammer of God down on advertisers is just a good general principle.)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Well, yes, of course it will be a failure. The do not track header is like putting a sign at your (open) front door saying "Please do not take anything".
It will only work on those people who probably wouldn't steal anything to begin with. And it will not help at all for people who are determined to steal from you. Instead, it will invite them. (In case of the DNT header, it will give them additional information: That you are a user concerned about privacy.)
That's the reason I do NOT have DNT enabled in Safari. I simply filter all that crap using extensions like Ghostery.
Better lock you door than just posting a sign.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
DNT is only worth anything if it is enforced by law with punishment suitable of the crime. Aka, 85% of a company's gross income per violation. If company goes under, go after the board/ceo/officers, etc.
None of this slap on the hand crap that means nothing.
None of this slap on the hand crap that means nothing.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
One point that the advertising and content industry always makes is that many of the things we love to use on the web is funded by accurately targeted advertising. That's perfectly valid. However those content providers aren't forced to send content to users who set the do not track flag. If a site or a service cannot support itself on non-tracking advertising it can simply choose to respond to DNT requests with a page explaining that.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
[qoute]This is problematic, because it's not actually in advertisers' interest to not track users.[/quote]
It is in their best interest if they want me to actually buy anything.
It is in their best interest if they want me to actually buy anything.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
It's not a good idea.adronbudows":2z4molb0 said:
What would be a good idea is to strictly forbid tracking by law unless the user explicitly opts in.
That would be a "May Track" header then. And no header would equal Do Not Track.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This will slightly hurt Bing revenue, but compared to the other benefits I don't think MS cares.
They get good Press and when the advertisers stop paying any attention to DNT, gov'ts will force the issue thus hurting Googles core revenue source.
This combined with them being selective about the messages they crawl in Outlook.com, kind of makes me think that they've stopped caring about duplicating Google's business model, and are using online assets to weaken them instead.
But then again, what the heck do I know?
They get good Press and when the advertisers stop paying any attention to DNT, gov'ts will force the issue thus hurting Googles core revenue source.
This combined with them being selective about the messages they crawl in Outlook.com, kind of makes me think that they've stopped caring about duplicating Google's business model, and are using online assets to weaken them instead.
But then again, what the heck do I know?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
"The FTC, meanwhile, takes the contrary view, saying in a letter to W3C that "Microsoft's default [Do Not Track] setting means that Microsoft, not consumers, will be exercising choice as to what signal the browser will send."
Just goes to show who the FTC represents, though it's supposed to be the opposite. Pray tell does the FTC also agree that automatically opting them in represents the same "forced choice" by Microsoft?
Reminds me of gun control, it doesn't affect people who are going to use gun illegally anyways.
Just goes to show who the FTC represents, though it's supposed to be the opposite. Pray tell does the FTC also agree that automatically opting them in represents the same "forced choice" by Microsoft?
harmless":2f0evoe1 said:
Reminds me of gun control, it doesn't affect people who are going to use gun illegally anyways.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Why not let users explicitly set it, but wave the option right in their faces when they first launch the browser?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
That's OK, until Advertisers respect my wish to not be tracked I'll continue to use the Do Not Track Plus and AdBlock Plus plugins on every browser I use. I'll also continue to evangelize the use of privacy plugins to everyone I know... Surely this hurts bottom-lines much more than respecting my DNT flags?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
It will survive as long as two out of three conditions are met:drhowarddrfine":3np9fiux said:
A) It is the default installed browser on any Microsoft OS. (Currently True)
B) People exist who do not know how to or why they should change their default browser. (Currently True)
C) People exist who either don't care or prefer IE. (I'm assuming this is true, but can't quantify that)
The disparity between overall IE marketshare and the traffic on Ars is enough of a message on that account.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Microsoft is doing the right thing for their users and I applaud the direction their company is taking. For too long we've had a middle layer that by function alters the veracity of information on sites. The internet is many things to many people, but for advertisers it's a feeding ground semi void of regulation and restrictions. Things advertisers by law couldn't do in person or on the phone aren't present on the internet.
I applaud Microsoft for standing up against the companies basing their business models on advertising and I applaud Microsoft for standing up for the actual consumer. They remind me of Dish Network fighting the good fight against the middle layer(s) whose business model isn't the viewer. Ads shouldn't drive business, products should.
I applaud Microsoft for standing up against the companies basing their business models on advertising and I applaud Microsoft for standing up for the actual consumer. They remind me of Dish Network fighting the good fight against the middle layer(s) whose business model isn't the viewer. Ads shouldn't drive business, products should.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Agreed, this is shameless pandering to the W3C. But a careful reading of the letter shows that the FTC commissioner is saying consumers who have Microsoft express their intentions have only gone half the way: the web sites have to honor the requests, and consumer expectations depend on a clear statement of intent from the W3C. The ball should be seen in their, not Microsoft's court with this action.Telekenesis":45cdof8s said:
Regards which, W3C has two choices: set no policy at all when a DNT request is seen (which will invite the named Senators, and others, to step in), or to set a standard the "DNT" means “Do Not Track” in an obvious way. The advertisers have no real choice in this; their complaints are similar to the screeching of animals as they are becoming another's lunch.
And why, after all, should DNT be a problem? A website can simply refuse to allow access to a DNT browser, or festoon the delivered page with all sorts of non-bypassable popups for those enemies of their revenue stream who insist on using DNT. They have no social obligation to deliver news or opinion or LOLcats to people who won't help them stay in business, and once it's obvious that they are actually decreasing profits by expanding non-ad-viewing hits, they won't.
The real issue is that, especially as more views come through mobiles the ad revenue model is badly broken. Even with full tracking, ads cost the user so much more in data, time and nuisance, than the monetary value of the page, for 99% of all ad-supported pages. DNT is merely a distraction from the inability of sites to survive the shakeout.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Seeing that in the USA personal privacy is 'turned on by default' by way of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, I find these arguments to be ridiculous. Of course advertisers have zero right to track anyone at any time for any reason. They can be left entirely out of consideration as they have no voice in the issue and never will. This subject is entirely up to individual choice. Obviously, the default choice, as per the US Constitution, is for full personal privacy. The End.
If a person chooses to turn on advertiser tracking, that is their right as well.
It really is that simple.
Now the marketing people can go rant and wail all they like about revenue and how the Internet pays for itself. It doesn't matter. People's rights always win over anything the Corporate Oligarchy wishes to impose.
If a person chooses to turn on advertiser tracking, that is their right as well.
It really is that simple.
Now the marketing people can go rant and wail all they like about revenue and how the Internet pays for itself. It doesn't matter. People's rights always win over anything the Corporate Oligarchy wishes to impose.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
This is utterly moronic. Regardless of what Microsoft makes the default setting, this statement is true.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Here is the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution for those who are unaware, such as members of the Corporate Oligarchy:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's simple to understand and simple to follow. No arguments are required. No Corporate Oligarchy can ever ignore it or override it.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It's simple to understand and simple to follow. No arguments are required. No Corporate Oligarchy can ever ignore it or override it.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
zunipus":1k478txv said:
The constitution restricts actions of government(s), not private arrangements. Going to a web site is like leaving your home and the safety bubble that the 4th ammendment provides (again, from government). No legal scholar of any significance would argue that the 4th ammendment is a blanket protection against web surf tracking.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Jokotai":2ubn6gjz said:
Thank you. I was screaming basically this in my mind at the article the entire time I read it. If you must go through the setup of IE which requires you to pick a homepage, search engine, and forces a choice of accelerators, why is it such a stretch to force a decision about Do Not Track?
On your second point, I think advertisers should simply incentivise turning off tracking. Right now it just means all our personal details get sent in some mystery database of privacy doom as far as we know, there is no benefit or incentive to allow any advertiser to know anything about us.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
They're acting like this will kill advertising completely. They'll still have ads, they just won't be as specifically targeted as they were.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
zunipus":3on95ipg said:
This is a governmental restriction, not a personal one.
And, more to the point, I think that this sort of tracking is a good thing. I know a lot of insane whiners will, well, be insane whiners, but here's the thing: I don't have a problem with, say, Google taking my search and using it to make their engine better. I don't object to Amazon trying to sell me items that I actually want instead of, say, penis enlargement pills. These are not bad things, and they are to everyone's benefit.
Sorry folks.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Walt French":1dpanbyt said:
The FTC's argument doesn't add up to me.
Someone, before they use a browser has control over their privacy and information. Automatically opting them in to not giving up their privacy rights and control of their information is more of a non choice then a choice becuase it is maintaining the same status that the individual had when they entered, it is affecting no change. Automatically opting them in is creating a large change of status and loss of control over the use of their information and their privacy. So using the FTC's argument that Microsoft exercising a choice automatically for consumers is "bad", logic dictates that the choice that affects no change in status for consumers is the most powerful "non choice", therefore conforming best with the FTC's claimed standard that choices shouldn't be made for consumers by Microsoft. Automatically opting consumers into tracking is a much larger presumptive and overbearing choice by Microsoft for consumers then the essential non action to their status and privacy which is automatically opting out of waiving rights, status and control.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
WaveRunner":3h9nbics said:
Web advertising is intrinsically different from traditional advertising (e.g. TV) where ads are broadcasted regardless of viewers interest, hence there lies the power of targeted advertising on the web. With traditional TV advertising, companies pay hundreds of thousand for a 30 second prime hour slot. On the web, companies only pay based on clicks and hits. On top of that, companies almost always contract out to professional advertisers to because tracking is not a trivial task and could in fact gets quite sophisticated. Professional advertisers could get the job done better and more cost-effectively.
Don't get me wrong, I am for the idea of DNT and value privacy as most do, but if I were to see advertisement anyway, I do not mind seeing something more relevant to me. In that sense, come to think of it, traditional TV advertisement feels like spams, doesn't it? Afterall, TiVo and DVR became popular because they allow us to skip (aka filter) out irrelevant ads...
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
goatsebatch":23fx1cky said:
It's not a stretch at all. In fact, it's such a non-stretch that that's what they're doing:
The [i:23fx1cky said:
Note that current versions of IE only offers the option of homepage, search engines, and so on if you select "Custom" - "Express" leaves those as default.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The whole issue of “default setting” is a canard. No website can tell whether a given user had a setting of DNT by default, changed it while visiting other sites, and quickly went back in horror (or because she simply felt it was her privilege) to DNT. The real issue is whether DNT will be dealt with honestly.Telekenesis":141iqph5 said:
Certainly, "DNT" is a pretty clear signal to sites, but if they play stupid, they aren't explicitly acting in bad faith. I think that type of obstructionism will last about 10 days after users start boycott campaigns against www.sstupid.com for ignoring DNT. (Yes, there is a real stupid.com.)
Those who don't mind tracking, thinking the ads will be more relevant to you, or at least produce more site revenue per eyeball-second of junk that you get served (and thereby supporting sites you like), you're probably right. Hope you're also able to get to your browser settings. But if you did a consumer survey of tracking, I assume you'd see about 95% of respondents approving of default DNT. (Microsoft probably knows.) Hard to argue that a default DNT is more than cosmetically different from a popup setting at startup.
One angle on this is that Microsoft is probably fine if it turns out to be a wedge issue against Google Chrome — pitting Google against the default recommendation that tech-savvy people will make to their grannies. “You should download Google Chrome and set it as your default browser but then turn off tracking in it by …” Uh huh.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
So it shouldn't default to true? Then that means it defaults to false.
But... it shouldn't default to false? Then that means it defaults to true.
But... it shouldn't default to true? Then th4t m34n5 17 0gh89hgvas9hg98723hg98ehag97h3
Did I miss something here?
I know there is the "null" option if enabled on a checkbox but how would that help this situation? Maybe alternate true and false on requests until the user sets the value
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Chemical Tribe
Ars Legatus Legionis
Uh-huh.
So let's say for a moment this isn't really a jab at MS's arch enemy Google. I go to Amazon. I browse tools, and specific ones. I come back later, and there are my recommendations of tools I browsed.
Is this the tracking we are against? Or is it all site agnostic? Do people know they are tracked in apple stores? Newegg.com? Anything with google analytics? Is that there the issue? Or is it when I'm logged in vs. logged out?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
- Status