However, I also see a clear use-case for when I would
like to not be
tracked at all
I'd advocate for a "Do Not Log Anything At
All" header that would allow
us to respect such a preference.
I much agree with Christian's that using "do not track" for total-opt-out
is a good usage of the header, implementing another one seems overkill and
I doubt we are going to go that route code wise, more so when do not track
FYI that we have WIP changes to honor the do not track header in event
logging. We should be deploying those in the near future.
We'd be making some bold and wasteful assumptions
on behalf of our users.
Giving users ability to turn off all tracking by using a
header called "do
not track" is pretty intuitive. Assuming that many of our users equal "do
not track" with "do not send my data" is is not assuming too much,
party tracking" is a pretty technical concept.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Aaron Halfaker <ahalfaker(a)wikimedia.org>
I think that the conclusion that you draw from that
study is sketchy.
They're really only asking what people think of when they read the words
"Do Not Track". I'd be more interested in knowing what people expect when
then look at their particular browser setting and what it is they actually
hope it will accomplish. This naivety seems to come through clearly in the
results. The plurality thought it had nothing to do with their
relationship with the site they were visiting at all.
The most frequent answer (33%) was that Do Not Track would affect their
For example, one participant wrote, “It would stop my browser from
tracking my browsing
Regardless of how people interpret the words "Do", "Not" and
see a clear use case for requesting that activities not be used to track me
between websites. It seems like that was what Do Not Track was designed to
However, I also see a clear use-case for when I would like to not be
tracked at all. I'd advocate for a "Do Not Log Anything At All" header
that would allow us to respect such a preference.
Really, I don't see good reason to jam one use case into something it so
apparently wasn't designed for. We'd be making some bold and wasteful
assumptions on behalf of our users.
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Christian Aistleitner <
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 02:24:02PM -0600, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
> Do Not Track is a technology and policy
proposal that enables users
*tracking by websites they do not visit*, [...]
Do not track is explicitly for third party tracking. We are merely
proposing to count those people who do access our sites.
The first/third party distinction and expemptions are clearly cut in
technical documents (although along different lines in different
commentaries). However, from my point of view, this distinction
ignores real-life users.
I for one don't want to spend half an hour to figure out which parts
of a page are first/third party. I'd just expect the gathering/using
of data to stop altogether.
And according to , I am not the only user who feels this way:
Preliminary results suggest that users do not share nearly so
nuanced view of tracking, but rather simply expect data collection
and use to cease when they click a Do Not Track button.
One can always do better than the minimum requirements of a standard.
For DNT, one can always choose to interpret it in a more restrictive
way and thereby move closer to the expectation of the users of the
 A. M. McDonald and J. M. Peha, "Track Gap: Policy Implications of
User Expectations for the `Do Not Track' Internet Privacy Feature,"
39th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference (TPRC), 2011.
---- quelltextlich e.U. ---- \\ ---- Christian Aistleitner ----
Companies' registry: 360296y in Linz
Kefermarkterstrasze 6a/3 Email: christian(a)quelltextlich.at
4293 Gutau, Austria Phone: +43 7946 / 20 5 81
Fax: +43 7946 / 20 5 81
Analytics mailing list
Analytics mailing list