Nothing helps rivals in the private sector find common ground quicker than the threat of government intervention. Microsoft and Mozilla – makers of dueling browsers Internet Explorer and Firefox – could be headed towards some kind of industry agreement on giving netizens the power to stop ad networks from tracking their behavior …
I already do a lot to stop the marketing parasites from tracking me by blocking the hell out of their cookies and scripts. I am supposed to trust these people to not track me when I ask (sprinkles and a cherry on top)?
We are talking about the kind of people who wouldn't lift a finger to save their own drowning granny without first showing them some targeted ads for swimming lessons and aids.
I'll switch on the "do not track" (because is won't be on by default as is should be) but I will continue to block the hell out of as much tracking stuff as I can.
Commercially Friendly, yes, but
I have no problems with Commercially Friendly.
I'm not getting the connection to "Privacy" though, because I do not agree with the premise that Users/Buyers are themselves the prey. Certainly their money is prey, but carnivores have no evolutionary imperative to hunt for sport when they are not hungry.
These measures provide no justification for the sport of privacy invasion. The 'Lions gotta be Lions' argument fails with real Lions (I know, Lionesses are the hunters, etc., but you know what I mean).
"Do not track" header
The problem I see with this is it might need legal teeth to make it any use whatsoever. Otherwise, it can be "oops, we do not support that 'feature'" or whatever other lame excuse seems suitable...
Probably worse than that.
I reckon that the more likely it is that you don't want someone to track you, the more likely it is that they'll ignore it. This rises to 100% certainty of the really nefarious bastards ignoring it regardless of any "legal teeth", which you can pretty much guarantee will have no relevance in whatever jurisdiction the SOB's have their stuff in anyway.
Worse, they have been working on their lame excuses for years.
Mozilla is bad (at least 3 "Standards" for LDAP). Microsoft is ... God knows.
minisurvey (some years ago) http://www.rustprivacy.org/2011/pii/cnpii.xml
Oh, Ms. Privacy Watchdog, you mean Surname=LastName=last-name ? Who would have guessed ?
Haven't they heard of Ghostery?
It's available at http://www.ghostery.com It's an addon for Firefox, IE, and other browsers that blocks nearly 500 trackers online, and some tracking cookies. Though the latter isn't a problem if you have a good cookie management policy. It also says it can block LSOs, but I prefer BetterPrivacy for that. Ghostery nicely solves this problem. We cannot rely on these people to self regulate.
Go one further
Install something like "Privoxy" and nuke them at source (well, nearer the source)
Microsoft's anti-tracking detection profile is interesting. The idea that it can find an remove hostile page elements by watching their behavior....but as with Chakra speed improvements, this behavior is too aggressive at the moment. It can break sites.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Analysis Pity the poor Windows developer: The tools for desktop development are in disarray
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'
- Analysis BlackBerry's turnaround relies on a secret weapon: Its own network
- Product round-up The Glorious Resolution: Feast your eyes on 5 HiDPI laptops