Lawyer's contributing to this guy... this is the part that concerns me the most... because my first instinct when looking at this is that "only the L[aw]Yers will profit from it". ACLU-types are NOT working in the best interest of America (as with Demo[n,c][R,r]ats] in general. As such, I mis-trust them instinctively.
And a "do not track" web site will (most likely) be as ineffective as the "do not call list" has been. As much as I like the idea, it's not enforced well enough to stop the problem. I can already see web site operators scoffing at it and making 'token' lookups of "you" on the list, while grossly violating it >90% of the time, and maybe even using it as a 'verified' list of VALID e-mails and identities!!!
And the addition of "teeth" into a "do not track" seems WAY too invasive to companies that might be doing things legitimately [let's say you subscribe to a service that tracks your purchases online in order to comp you with discounts...]. Just hit them where the board members care about it, a combination of their company reputation along with some financial "incentives", like INDIVIDUAL "loser pay" lawsuits they're constantly forced to settle if they engage in bad behavior like that. [it helped with GWX didn't it?]
And they REALLY care about privacy, they should ONLY allow "opt in". "Opt out" doesn't work.