FTC Wants Do-Not-Track Browser System... But Does The Government Need To Be Involved?
from the it's-called-no-script dept
So a lot of folks are talking about the FTC's new plan for a "Do Not Track" system, which would be a browser-based tool that would let people indicate that they do not want various marketing/advertising/tracking tools to track their internet surfing. While I appreciate the FTC's general concern about privacy, I'm sort of wondering why it needs to be involved at all, if the idea is to create a browser-based system for this. There are already technological tools out there to do much of what the FTC appears to want. You can disable cookies or use tools like No Script to block most tracking efforts already. So what does the FTC's push do that isn't already being done by the market?Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: browser, do not track, ftc, privacy, regulations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oy vey!
Also, (just a reminder everybody) there was a ton of bluster about Social Security Numbers never ever being used for identification. Of course, that was before the SSC Act was passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
derp
a browser is only as "trackable" as you let it be.
stop running 3rdparty javascript and viola, you no longer have to worry about 29 million organizations tracking your every move.
the best part? pages load a million times faster when they arent busy pulling a thousand .js files from a million different ad companies.
why doesnt everyone do this? I have no clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: derp
But that doesn't make this proposal any better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: derp
Roundabout way to do it (and one might argue slightly paranoid), but it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: derp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DIY privacy intruder :)
http://hackaday.com/2010/12/01/you-know-that-they-say-about-guys-with-big-lenses/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're privacy-sensitive, try not to shit your pants: http://samy.pl/evercookie/
There are some interesting possible technical solutions to these problems -- but a policy solution is just absolutely impossible. The browser is just too insecure -- we can't reasonably expect every company to vet every bit of ad code that goes on their servers. Censorship through third party liability indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Explorer
If it's not built into Internet Explorer, it doesn't exist. Since most users use IE anyway, and have no idea to install Firefox, let alone Addons, they don't care that NoScript and ABP exist. It's not serving the "majority" of the population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet Explorer
However this does not make it the purview of the government to jump in with a 'solution'. As much as I appreciate the Do Not Call list I still think it was at best a questionable stretch of government power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet Explorer
This is not to say that other browsers are secure, in the sense of "completely secure". Of course they're not. They do, however, give the user a fighting chance thanks to a combination of vastly superior design, development, testing, and deployment practices.
Anyone running IE might as well just hand over their system to the botnet operators; the latter will own it shortly anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are identifiable by the extensions and plug ins you run, along with browser version, OS, and other info sent to the web page to adjust for your viewing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/05/13
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree. A browser + add-ons actually make for a distinct tracking mechanism within itself:
https://panopticlick.eff.org/index.php
There are other issues which can't be blocked. In fact, Techdirt just wrote about one just recently.
Despite this, I agree the FTC need not be involved unless browser developers are intentionally making tracking a feature, not a bug.qw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So maybe the FTC does need to get involved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, yes, I can. But I'm the type of person who reads Techdirt.
Adblock and especially NoScript are actually very user-unfriendly; people who use them already may not realize this because they're geeks. The average person would not be able to figure out how to properly protect themselves from being tracked.
If the FTC can offer an idiot-proof anti-tracking system (which is unlikely, but stranger things have happened), then by all means, let 'em go for it. The free market's open to all players, including the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cookies no longer required to track you
The latest craze in tracking: fingerprinting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cookies no longer required to track you
TOR+Privoxy is great for that it spoofs everything.
Ad the noscript as another layer and don't ever enable scripts and you should be good for 99% of the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"FTC Wants Do-Not-Track Browser System..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When that is in place, it is easier to put pressure on the companies/websites that are abusing individual's information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While telemarketers can't call you directly, they can call and leave a message if you don't answer and it is perfectly legal.
Worse you have supplied your phone into a data bank that politicians have left a loophole for themselves to call you about political contributions, also perfectly legal and allowed.
The smarter path on that is don't answer the phone unless you know who it is. Then you're not in the data bank to be mined for info.
This same option is not open for the internet. They aren't asking for permission to harvest data on you, they are simply taking it without asking anything.
Since it is valuable in the sense of selling lists, I don't want them to have the data. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's just stupid. Seriously, "much of" and "most" don't cut it. Would you like your doctor to tell you they removed "much of" the gangrene?
Also, get BetterPrivacy, a Firefox add-on that kills Flash based cookies, in addition to AdBlock and NoScript.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
usefulness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do-Not-Call Too!
You could say the same thing for the do-not-call list or the gov't rules against telemarketing to mobile phones. Yeah, let's get rid of all those pesky restrictions!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]