Nah, the idea was sound. When Do Not Track was introduced, most jurisdictions had privacy laws which required users to opt-out. Sending this DNT header could have been an indication of users not wanting to be tracked and therefore would have served as legally binding opt-out.
It was Microsoft that killed it, by having Internet Explorer send the DNT header by default. When it’s sent by default, without users actively choosing to activate it, then it cannot serve as a legally binding opt-out anymore.
The GDPR kind of does the job that DNT could have done, if that’s what you’re thinking of…? Tracking generally needs to be opt-in for EU citizen, so you don’t need to send a cautionary opt-out signal anymore.
Admittedly, the “most jurisdictions” is me guessing, based on how I expect laws to work in most countries. As in, I expect most countries to have some law that says you can’t take someone’s data, if they don’t want you to take it. And then tracking is/was somewhat of a grey area, because companies argued that tracking is totally in the interest of users, like, who doesn’t want to see personalized ads? But yeah, if you then remove any doubt by sending them an opt-out, then it’s most definitely not a grey area anymore.
the idea of “do not track” is quite comical.
It assumes the other party to honour the request. It is as good as telling thieves not to open your door because you put up a “do not open”.
The “Do not track” signal also became an additional attribute used for fingerprinting users.
Nah, the idea was sound. When Do Not Track was introduced, most jurisdictions had privacy laws which required users to opt-out. Sending this DNT header could have been an indication of users not wanting to be tracked and therefore would have served as legally binding opt-out.
It was Microsoft that killed it, by having Internet Explorer send the DNT header by default. When it’s sent by default, without users actively choosing to activate it, then it cannot serve as a legally binding opt-out anymore.
Source: trust me bro
https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2015/04/03/an-update-on-microsofts-approach-to-do-not-track/
Where’s the lie?
isn’t DNT enforced in the EU only? That is hardly “most” jurisdictions
The GDPR kind of does the job that DNT could have done, if that’s what you’re thinking of…? Tracking generally needs to be opt-in for EU citizen, so you don’t need to send a cautionary opt-out signal anymore.
Admittedly, the “most jurisdictions” is me guessing, based on how I expect laws to work in most countries. As in, I expect most countries to have some law that says you can’t take someone’s data, if they don’t want you to take it. And then tracking is/was somewhat of a grey area, because companies argued that tracking is totally in the interest of users, like, who doesn’t want to see personalized ads? But yeah, if you then remove any doubt by sending them an opt-out, then it’s most definitely not a grey area anymore.