Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., introduced a bill Friday that would give the Federal Trade Commission authority to establish an online do-not-track system.
The bill is the first in this session to specifically tackle the creation of a do-not-track system, according to a spokesman for Ms. Speier. In December, the FTC issued a report recommending the creation of a do-not-track system and suggested that lawmakers use the report as a template for legislation.
Since the FTCs recommendation, Mozilla Corp. has said it will include a do-not-track feature in an upcoming version of its Firefox Web browser. But so far, no tracking companies have publicly stated that they will participate in a do-not-track system.
In its newest Internet Explorer browser, Microsoft will allow users to stop certain websites and tracking companies from monitoring them. And Google last month began offering a tool that lets users of its Chrome browser permanently opt out of ad-tracking cookies.
3:31 pm on Feb 14, 2011 (gmt 0)
Hopefully it performs better than the U.S. Government's Do Not Call Registry.
I'll stick to my tried and true method of not accepting cookies along with clearing any cookies I may allow when exiting the browser.
I have about 10 cookies that are allowed, all the others get nixed if they even make it onto my system. Unfortunately, some sites will throw upwards of 20, 30 cookies at a pop. I quickly use my back button when encountering those situations. I can do without the extra weight. ;) And, they can do without my visit and/or sale. I'll find it elsewhere.
4:03 pm on Feb 14, 2011 (gmt 0)
Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., introduced a bill Friday
They introduced a bill. It still has a long way until it actually goes into law (or into effect).
5:01 pm on Feb 14, 2011 (gmt 0)
Will it effect Cookie tracking in Affiliate Marketing ?
5:45 pm on Feb 14, 2011 (gmt 0)
We don't need no stink'n legislation to dump cookies.
Lot's of FREE software will do it and even AV programs kill tracking cookies.
Shouldn't they be doing something of value like making sure we don't have a financial collapse?
I'm just say'n, waste of my tax payer money on hysterical hype opposed to real world needs.
9:25 pm on Feb 14, 2011 (gmt 0)
Yeah, I agree this is a waste of government resources on such a benign problem if you can really call it a problem. People are so paranoid over cookies--I blame it on the anti-spyware companies for making cookies seem dangerous--bunch of hogwash--don't buy into the dangerous cookie thing.
10:02 pm on Feb 14, 2011 (gmt 0)
Who needs Cookies nowadays to track visitors. Cookies are out, browser fingerprinting is in.
So do we need new legislation about tracking users? Oh, yes we do. More than ever.
1:17 am on Feb 15, 2011 (gmt 0)
So what will this mean for people who earn revenue from affiliate networks like eBay where cookies are used to track winning bids/bidders?
4:26 am on Feb 15, 2011 (gmt 0)
@jesac, it would be trivially simple for browser makers to reduce the amount of identifying information in the UA string. Accept headers are harder, but, as far as I can see, we could get rid of q parameters at least. I doubt many sites use anything other than language and compression.
7:35 am on Feb 15, 2011 (gmt 0)