- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.de
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.de
Who really does hope something from the “DnT”
While the ruling against LinkedIn is a welcome development, I’m skeptical it will truly move the needle on respecting user privacy. Do Not Track has been around for years, yet sites continue ignoring it without consequence. This case may set a precedent, but it’s one isolated judgment in Germany.
Ironically this site serves koko analytics, which now ignores the Do Not Track header (as per Mozilla’s recommendation, mind you). See commit 6890f3c.
Thankfully uBlock Origin blocks loading the scripts.
The Do Not Track protocol describes why it shouldn’t be enabled by default. Browsers like IE and others have broken their DNT implementation by enabling it by default, essentially killing interest in DNT as a preference solution.
Honestly, DNT as it’s implemented in browsers today is not a sufficient solution. There is no universal definition of “tracking” or any privacy considerations as specified by privacy law. Even if this stuff is legally enforced, ad companies will always take the most liberal definition of “tracking” until they get sued in court (which just doesn’t happen).
The evolution of DNT, GPC is probably more relevant but has even fewer implementations, despite being verified as a legal obligation under the Californian CCPA already, though the only lawsuit I could find ended in a settlement.
I’ve come to the same conclusion (blogged about it here https://www.srcbeat.com/2023/11/linkedin-do-not-track/) after updating myself on where it’s all at.
I also think about pop-ups back in the 90s/00s. Imagine if browsers sent a “No-Popups” header (or something) back then. I doubt we would have seen any change in company behaviour. Instead, it took something like Firefox to implement pop-up blocking by default (https://lwn.net/Articles/130792/).
Lmao, thanks for the share XD
We could certainly un-depricate it. It’s not like we need to reinvent the wheel here as a society on this.
deleted by creator