Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
probably the only time I would say MS is potentially doing
something right. Every one of these advertisers is who is
being humiliated if you ask me - this is saying "we all pay MS
- we are the unidentified third parties with which all of your
information is being shared".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
if they want to do this give us the operating system freely
and then go ahead do all this stupid stuff....
( then runs to linux and laughs oh ya this is why )[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: albert on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
The leopard doesn't change his spots, but this is so unlike MS that it beggars
disbelief. It must be a mistake. The only reason I can think of is complaints
from corporate _users_ of MS systems, who don't want their employees deluged
with ads.
I apologize in advance for trying to use logic here.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
Isn't the whole point of the IE10 DNT that it violates web standards
and promotes the unpromotable? If an advertiser's website ignores
the DNT header the browser sends, it's business as usual, and there's
diddly squat MS or the luser can do about it. Apache are already
on record as saying their web server will by default ignore MS DNT.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
We have been tracked by credit card purchased for decades. The internet just
made it easier for them to collate the data. Then there are the coupons by
which the sellers give you a little something back for sharing your shipping
preferences.
What concerns people is the potential to use online shopping history to set
pricing. If you are more likely to buy a product then you are not enticed by
sales offers. If you are less likely to buy then you are offered a lower price.
Sounds like haggling except you aren't engaging a human sales clerk, you are
engaging a cold calculating computer network.
There is nothing immoral in what these online merchants are doing. It is not a
violation of your privacy if they combine their transaction data. You can
always choose not to do business with them.
I suppose that in the long run these merchants will be answered with personal
purchase agents of some kind. If your purchases are done through some bulk
purchase agency like an online Costco but one that hides your particular choices
from the suppliers then their ability to use your online purchase patterns can
be mitigated.
The legislature wants a reason to justify strong government control over the
Internet and even more taxation. They are always looking for ways to increase
power, control, and influence. This false privacy issue is asking the
government to step in and protect a right that we do not actually have.
Legislation and law suits are not the answer. Technology enabled this data
collection. Technology needs to be used to counter it. Merchants have the
right to use the information that you voluntarily provide them. You have the
right to use third parties to obscure this information.
Of course you could always use cash at you local shopping center but that's an
extreme solution.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- P&G, Walmart, Over reaction? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
Would not a setting of Do Not Track to FALSE mean track the user activity and
TRUE means turn it off.
It wouldn't be the first time the setting of a flag was confused with the action
it triggered.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
It isn't as simple as Microsoft standing up for the users. The statement from
the Apache developer who patched the Apache web server to counter this move by
MS in IE10 says that Do Not Track is a standard that specifies that the DNT
setting being on or off MUST indicate an active choice by a human user that may
be voluntarily honored by the web server. It works to the degree that
advertisers can be convinced to turn off tracking for people who care enough to
request it. The incentives for advertisers to honor the flag fail if the browser
does not conform to the standards and advertisers cannot treat a DNL flag as an
informed choice.
As Apache said, Microsoft is a member of the standards group that came up with
this, they could have pushed for a different standard, and they didn't. Instead
they now once again break standards.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|