Who really does hope something from the “DnT”
While the ruling against LinkedIn is a welcome development, I’m skeptical it will truly move the needle on respecting user privacy. Do Not Track has been around for years, yet sites continue ignoring it without consequence. This case may set a precedent, but it’s one isolated judgment in Germany.
Ironically this site serves koko analytics, which now ignores the Do Not Track header (as per Mozilla’s recommendation, mind you). See commit 6890f3c.
Thankfully uBlock Origin blocks loading the scripts.
as per Mozilla’s recommendation, mind you
The Do Not Track protocol describes why it shouldn’t be enabled by default. Browsers like IE and others have broken their DNT implementation by enabling it by default, essentially killing interest in DNT as a preference solution.
Honestly, DNT as it’s implemented in browsers today is not a sufficient solution. There is no universal definition of “tracking” or any privacy considerations as specified by privacy law. Even if this stuff is legally enforced, ad companies will always take the most liberal definition of “tracking” until they get sued in court (which just doesn’t happen).
The evolution of DNT, GPC is probably more relevant but has even fewer implementations, despite being verified as a legal obligation under the Californian CCPA already, though the only lawsuit I could find ended in a settlement.
Honestly, DNT as it’s implemented in browsers today is not a sufficient solution
I’ve come to the same conclusion (blogged about it here https://www.srcbeat.com/2023/11/linkedin-do-not-track/) after updating myself on where it’s all at.
I also think about pop-ups back in the 90s/00s. Imagine if browsers sent a “No-Popups” header (or something) back then. I doubt we would have seen any change in company behaviour. Instead, it took something like Firefox to implement pop-up blocking by default (https://lwn.net/Articles/130792/).
Lmao, thanks for the share XD
We could certainly un-depricate it. It’s not like we need to reinvent the wheel here as a society on this.
deleted by creator
Btw, most of the tracking scripts use dnt as additional data point, since it’s opt-in and most don’t have that set.
I hope someday DNT would not be an additional part of your digital fingerprint nailing you down as a part of a minority who turn this shit on.
I like that some people are aware of this. No metadata is also metadata.
thats clearly an risk, they can use this to determine what they want to see.
It’s a step. I’ll take the win. Hopefully other countries follow.
How much are they being fined for this violation?
Crazy DNT is a thing?
Users must expressly agree before their profiles can be visible to non-members.
Wait the law encourages authwalls? Isn’t that worse?
no, it encourages something called “consent”.
That could do both ways tho.
I dont consent to Facebook and LinkedIn making my profile invisible to internet users who dont have an account with them (which on those platform it is not possible to register and account anonymously)
Ok but LinkedIn and Facebook don’t have a duty to broadcast what you want all over the internet.
They don’t need consent not to share personal information, only to share it.
Yeah, I disagree with that. I think we need laws that require companies to allow anonymous users to access their content, with few exceptions.
deleted by creator
I think that is a bit of a tall order don’t you!?
