| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Do Not Track: an uncertain future |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-10-12 23:06:08 |
| "With the fate of our beloved internet economy allegedly at stake, perhaps it's a good time to examine what Do Not Track is. How did the standard came to be, what does it do, and how does it stand to change online advertising? Is it as innocuous as privacy advocates make it sound, or does it stand to jeopardize the free, ad-supported internet we've all come to rely on?" Do Not Track is inherently flawed because it gives people a false sense of security. Other than perhaps well-known and accountable sites, nobody's going to abide by it anyway. We don't need nonsense like DNT - we need to educate people about that 'private browsing' button. Everybody's already using it for porn anyway; shouldn't be hard to let people know what other things it can be used for. |
|
| RE[4]: I had to stop reading after this bit |
| By Bill Shooter of Bul on 2012-10-13 04:37:09 |
| The call volume is usually once every other week from different phone number each time, having an auto block feature helps greatly. |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: All I've ever thought about DNT... |
| By Lazarus on 2012-10-13 05:21:27 |
|
> If you don't mind my asking, how would you have thought of it if it had been presented, persistently, in terms of a checkbox labelled with "Request that all participating sites opt me out of being tracked" I'd not have thought any differently about it. The problems are not how the "feature" is presented but in how it works. Its like leaving your house unlocked all the time, putting a note on the front door letting any passer-by know that its unlocked and asking them to not do anything nefarious. DNT is a foolish waste of time and resources. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[5]: I had to stop reading after this bit |
| By Alfman on 2012-10-13 05:32:09 |
|
Bill Shooter of Bul, "The call volume is usually once every other week from different phone number each time, having an auto block feature helps greatly." Is that a feature of your provider or your phone? If I could block numbers, I'd probably be down to every other week on average as well. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Do not call?!? |
| By Soulbender on 2012-10-13 06:48:37 |
|
> I pay for received calls Say what? That's as absurd as having to pay for the letters people send you. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Do not call?!? |
| By Alfman on 2012-10-13 08:38:33 |
|
Soulbender, "That's as absurd as having to pay for the letters people send you." This always surprises people in europe, but yeah that's the way it is in the US especially with mobile phones. If you have a PAYG plan, you pay for incoming calls outright. If you have minutes on your plan, then those are total minutes which will deduct incoming calls before applying overage charges. I think our overage charge is around $0.40/minute, which I presume is rounded up. Different plans have different times when the minutes can apply. On a related note, I don't have/don't want a texting plan, but I still get some occasional spam texts & some from friends. I make a point of never reading them because I'd rather they call. Anyway those get billed at $0.20 a piece. You get used to it. |
| - Score: 2 |
| Comment by marcp |
| By marcp on 2012-10-13 09:56:04 |
| IMO the best practice is to have TNO policy - trust no one. Especially marketers. They want to get your info no matter what the regulations would be, so you better watch your ass and protect your privacy yourself. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: Do not call?!? |
| By kwan_e on 2012-10-13 13:02:48 |
|
> > I pay for received calls Say what? That's as absurd as having to pay for the letters people send you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l... |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Comment by marcp |
| By UltraZelda64 on 2012-10-13 14:06:38 |
|
I agree. But tell that to the marketers--they'll have a fit insisting that everyone should trust them. Uh... no. Just no. I take the TNO stance with all the Firefox extensions I use (AdBlock Plus with Element Hiding Helper, NoScript with only certain sites I visit "allowed" to use javascript/Flash, Do Not Track Plus because the *real* DNT is a joke). I allow no third-party cookies... so if I don't visit a site, I accept nothing from them. By the way... does anyone actually allow cookies on a per-site basis? Firefox has the option hidden where I'd least expect it, but I tried to use it and it's a massive PITA these days. Some sites give you 6 or 12 cookies or more just for one page... even not including third-party ones. Add the third party ones to say "no" to and it basically makes going to even one site a chore. There's got to be a better way. The closest I've came to decent (but still far from it, because it asks for every third-party cookie as well) is having it remember my choices for certain sites (allow for session, allow, deny). A mixture of "block all third-party cookies" and "ask me every time" would be nearly perfect. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by ssokolow |
| By Lennie on 2012-10-13 15:02:43 |
|
There are actually 3 states: - user did not make a choice (no header was sent) or the browser does not support it - user made a choice: don't mind to be tracked - user made a choice: do not want to be tracked The first is the default. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[6]: I had to stop reading after this bit |
| By Bill Shooter of Bul on 2012-10-13 16:08:24 |
| My phone. |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |