And so it starts.
Didn't Apache make the same decision a little while ago?
Yes, the did (answering my own question after reading the article...)
And probably scuppers discussions with the EU over the EU Cookie Directive where they were looking to work with Browser developers to make it that users needed to opt-in to be tracked rather than opt-out (if they could work out how).
I guess Yahoo see this as too much a threat to their income
You know, I don't agree that it doesn't "accurately reflect user intent." I've had at least a couple dozen non-techy average users tell me in the past few years how creepy it is when ads for a certain thing follow you all over the net. I've yet to hear one positive comment about it.
But that's okay. Nobody uses Yahoo anyway, so they're not going to notice. :)
It's very simple. When you install IE10, it should force you to respond to a screen explaining Do Not Track and asking if you'd prefer to be tracked. Then it would reflect user intent. But no one's asking for this because they know the only "Yes, please track me" votes they'd get would be from people who misread the form. ;)
|But no one's asking for this because they know the only "Yes, please track me" votes they'd get would be from people who misread the form. |
That is absolutely spot on.
The people complaining most about this 'user intent' are obviously those with vast amounts of money at risk. Those people who are complaining who don't appear to have anything to gain...well...I only have my suspicions.
This is the biggest threat to google, ever. MS can destroy the current web ecosystem by fudging up the monetization of a good chunk of the web (if not most)
You knew this was going to happen. Gathering people's personal information and browsing habits is just too profitable for a search company to ignore. Wall st demands that they not only collect the information but that they record massive earnings with it, quarterly.
Yahoo's reasoning doesn't fly however, I actually DO intend for my browser not to allow Yahoo to track me. I think they should expect a federal lawsuit shortly.
Well for the odd time I would ever use IE or Yahoo! for that matter, there is this little plugin called "Simple Adblock", as well as the ever-popular Adblock Plus that will be adding support for IE soon.
Nice try Yahoo!
Moxie, that's pretty much the only way to reclaim your privacy in the long run - by making your habits unprofitable any way you can.
|that's pretty much the only way to reclaim your privacy in the long run - by making your habits unprofitable any way you can. |
I think that that best sums it all up; and I couldn't have said it better myself.
I believe that the vast majority of users out there aren't even aware that their browsing habits are being tracked, so anything that can be done to raise awareness to the fact that their privacy is being kicked to the wayside for the sake of money IMO is extremely important (kudos to the OP); as well as ways to prevent such a thing from occurring.
As I'm sure you well know, privacy nowadays is more important than it ever was; especially in a world where identity theft is running rampant; but that's a whole other topic altogether, so I'll just leave it at that.
At least this is one of those things where word of mouth could work extremely well. Once people understand they're being tracked, they want to know how to stop it, and now the tools are available. I've certainly been telling everyone I know (who shows any interest) about AdBlock and similar items.
But DNT could be a much better option than that - I for one don't want to block ads completely on sites where that's their livelihood. If they're giving me great free content, I don't want to deprive them of money. I just want to deprive the ad sellers of my private info.
|I for one don't want to block ads completely on sites where that's their livelihood. If they're giving me great free content, I don't want to deprive them of money. I just want to deprive the ad sellers of my private info. |
I hear ya; the great thing about Adblock (as you may be aware of) is the fact that you can put exceptions in place for the sites you care about; and have your browser set to delete all cookies on exit to deter tracking (not a great solution unless you're exiting immediately after leaving such sites, which probably doesn't happen mostly); else delete them manually once you leave such a site if you wish to continue browsing.
Either way, I prefer the manual way, even though it's a little more work, but it's more secure for obvious reasons. That, and I'm just a little ocd about deleting cookies manually. ;] I mainly use Firefox (except where web design is concerned), and I never did trust the "Tell websites I do not want to be tracked" feature, mainly because Mozilla themselves state that "Honoring this setting is voluntary".
|even though it's a little more work |
a work that most of all users wouldn't bother to do. adblock is set and forget. no one cares about the webmaster earnings loss.
even if your website is of value to the respective user, most of all don't know or care about unblocking the ads you live on. you're completely dependent on:
a) their mercy, that requires
b) their background knowledge of the issue, that requires
c) a minimum iq and understanding of web economy plus
d) their technical ability to handle the program settings plus
e) activity and actually take on the work to unblock your ads.
the sad truth is that this leaves only a tiny fraction of people.