Talk:Do Not Track/Archive 1

Chrome

Though Chrome does not support the header, Google did release an extension, Keep My Opt-Outs to add support.Smallman12q (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google's Keep My Opt-Outs, while having a similar aim, is actually implemented with opt-out cookies and has nothing to do with HTTP headers. Mojoworker (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update this talk page - the article now says Chrome 23 does support it (currently in beta version 23). I added a link to the separate KMOO. Widefox; talk 12:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with DNT is...

...that websites can punish users for enabling it (nagging/kicking/banning) --Btx40 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* unenforceable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposed" header?

Asking here because perhaps there's some context I am missing -- the article says "The Do Not Track (DNT) header is the **proposed** HTTP header field DNT that requests that a web application disable either its tracking ... " but it looks like functionality has been implemented for multiple browsers, no? At what point would it stop being a "proposed" field and just be an existing field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.104.46 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Track is back?

I found this news article, saying that the U.S. Senate is bringing it back. is this notable? i see not mention of it.

Let's wait for more detailed publications about the proposal. So far I have a few questions and comments:

1. This might be also (or more) relevant to Do Not Track legislation rather than here.

2. What is the proposal? Is there a "Do Not Track list" as the article implies with "by allowing any one to put themselves on a Do Not Track list at the 'touch of a button.'". Or is there no "Do Not Track list" because the original press release only compares this system to "Do Not Call" list and never explicitly mentions "Do Not Track" list?

3. If there is no "Do Not Track list", then the Register got it all wrong. It should not be used as a source for this article.

4. If the proposal actually calls for a "Do Not Track list", what is the mechanism? I'm afraid such system it is dead on arrival for technological reasons. First of all, who would maintain this list and what will be on the list, and how it would work? The "Do not call" list works because every user has a permanent phone number that can be put onto the list. In contrast, IP addresses (which are arguably the web equivalent of phone numbers) are frequently assigned dynamically (public-facing IPv6 addresses can easily change even within the same browsing session let alone persist long enough to be put on a list) or are shared by multiple users via Network address translation (common with IPv4 addresses). As I read it, the proposal would be an opt-out mechanism, so the burden of proof that user is on the list would fall onto user, so user would have to demonstrate that it is on the list, which means user needs to present some (semi)unique identifier or some other.

Anton.bersh (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the actual proposal published in full. The main takeaways are:

1. There is no "Do Not Track list", as the Register implies.

2. This is actually describing the DNT header, albeit in very vague terms: "DNT signal to every website, online service, or online application to which the device connects each time the device connects to such website, service, or application".

Anton.bersh (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]