Updated 'Do Not Track' draft says IE 10's default setting breaks rules
Summary: Microsoft's plans to introduce a default "Do Not Track" setting have been scuppered by no less than the draft specification's writers themselves.
Microsoft likely knew it was going to be an unpopular move for advertisers and tracking companies but went ahead and barged its way through a storm of criticism.
Though, it wasn't that the pressure was too much for Microsoft. It falls down to the "Do Not Track" specification itself. In short: the new draft rules must give the user the option to choose rather than Microsoft making the default decision for them.
The new draft specification --- worked on by technology companies and browser makers, privacy advocates, and online advertising firms --- now states that "explicit consent" is required from users, Wired reports.
"An ordinary user agent must not send a Tracking Preference signal without a user’s explicit consent," the new rules say. For example, "on first run, the user agent prompts the user to configure the Tracking Preference signal."
Granted, it could end up with Microsoft forcing a new user to select a "do not allow websites to track me" versus an "allow websites to track me" option. The user has to choose, but it's a pretty clear choice on which option a user will pick.
ZDNet's Ed Bott sees Microsoft's move as more of a "consistent chain of events" that goes back many years.
The chances are Microsoft's position hasn't changed. The Redmond-based software giant still wants to fight for the rights of its users... or wants to strike a deathly blow to Google. Either way, intentions aside, it's a good move.
But "Do Not Track" is far from infallible. The crux of the opposing argument is that websites do not have to adhere to the rules. Instead, it's a flagging system to signal a user's preference rather than a direct opt-out solution.
Browsers with "Do Not Track" enabled do not block tracking cookies set by advertisers. Instead, it's the browser asking the website not to track the user. Online ad networks do not have to comply yet --- this may change in the coming months, but is not enforceable without a legislative approach --- but industry pressure is on following Twitter's move to support the technology.
Because the specification is no more than a list of best practices rather than rules, Microsoft can go its own way, twist the knife in the back of advertisers like Google, and go ahead with its default-setting anti-tracking solution.
All it means is that the technology giant will not be able to say it adheres to the proper "Do Not Track" specification. Having said that, it also means many websites could therefore ignore Internet Explorer 10's outbound flags, negating Microsoft's best efforts altogether.
Related:
- Is Microsoft finally ready to get serious about online privacy?
- ZDNet: Microsoft to advertisers: Drop dead
- CNET: Microsoft ticks off advertisers with IE10 ‘Do Not Track’ policy
- Good Microsoft versus Bad Microsoft on privacy
- IE9 and Tracking Protection: Microsoft disrupts the online ad business
- Internet Explorer 9 Tracking Protection: how it works
- Google defense cites study arguing for stronger privacy regulation
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Sounds like...
Google sponsers Mozilla, Opera and other who particvipate in W3C workgroup
An optional feature will be used by less than 5% of users.
They can live with that.
Ignored anyway
The W3C should be disbanded
They were the original and only reason why the web developed incompatiblity problems in the first place. Firstly, because they published vague specifications, and the second time when they refined those specifications in a way that made them incompatible with the de facto standard interpretations (which at that time was mostly Microsoft's, because IE had >90% market share). This lead to older and modern browsers intepreting the same things differently. Microsoft has been blamed for years because of this, but the fact is: it was the W3C creating this problem.
And now they want to go against the users (and Microsoft) again, and cripple innovation and limit freedom of choice. It's not that blocking advertising by default does not hurt the web economics - because it does; that is beyond question. But the W3C is supposed to be a technical body - not a subservant of it's members' (like that of Google's, Mozilla's, and the likes') and their economic interests.
What they do now is to practically blackmail Microsoft that if the latter tries to go against the economic interest of their major stakeholders, then he will made the culprit again - just like they did in the old ages with the "web standards"-thing (which as explained above was their fault too). I just hope that the users (and even more?? the developers) have wisened up in the meantime, and will see through the W3C's latest propaganda action.
Maybe the time has arrived to establish another, truly independent and transparent organization for managing web "standards", which can actually live up to its job, and not just chase behind the actual innovators, while crippling economics, both for users and developers.
I think they W3C hates Microsoft.
Take a look at who's writing the HTML5 proposal...
The W3C has also said that HTML5 won't be ratified until at least...[b][u]2022!!![/u][/b]
It wouldn't surprise me to find out Apple was behind this
You need to change your Meds
So you believe that Microsoft should control the Internet? Sorry but Microsoft did not invent, nor did hey invest money into the Internet. If Microsoft can't play by the rules (and they always seem to have that issue),
You completely missed the point. nobody played by the rules back then
Humm . . .
Updated 'Do Not Track' draft says IE 10's default setting breaks rules
[i]Having said that, it also means many websites could therefore ignore Internet Explorer 10???s outbound flags, negating Microsoft???s best efforts altogether.[/i]
It also means they can ignore any other browser that uses the do not track. Who is going to enforce it?
RE: Who is going to enforce it?
I have Firefox set to delete [b]most[/b], but not all cookies when I close a session. Ghostery is set to block most trackers.
MS should just put up an initial first run prompt only this time if the
Shocking...
It just sounded like one of those things that you get promised that suddenly disappears at the last minute with a;
"Oooooh jeeeez, so sorry guys, turns out we can't do that, here's an excuse and a fake apology."
Companies represented, consumers ignored and shut out.
Better yet, I want a tool that allows me to designate who I do want to track me and my preferences. One that I can run when I want to, and not every damn time a new site or link shows up on my browser window.
Amen brother!
Sorry, there is no such technology
This "Do Not Track" stuff is completely useless and in my opinion exists only as an excuse for those who actually track you.
Unless you take active measures (unlike this HTTP header), you must accept that you are being tracked. Always.
IE actually does that
Mozilla already backtracked on that with Firefox
Then they realized (or Google pointed it out to them) that it would hurt their bottom line, so they actually went for DNT instead - which is practically useless from the end user's perspective, as it does not force the advertiser or the website to actually obey their wish of not wanting to be tracked.
That's how Firefox got DNT in the end, instead of the far more effective Tracking Protection. Google in Chrome never actually implemented even that. And now these two companies (Mozilla and Google) want also to neuter even the DNT.
People should really think through which companies do actually serve their interests, instead of just felling prey to propaganda, worship Google and Mozilla while despising Microsoft.
Some surefire ways to defeat tracking cookies:
2: Set your browser to delete all cookies when you exit.
3: When you exit a site which requires cookies, manually clear the cookies. Although many sites do not install third party cookies, this is still a good idea if you are security conscious.
While in some instances, we may have to accept cookies--we don't have to eat them.