IE9 also supports a second protection feature called "tracking protection", which is essentially just client-side domain blocking based on various lists updated by privacy organisations.
Neat, but won't use it until they merge the URL + Search bars like Chrome.
Man I HATE that feature. I used it on IE9 and it sucks balls. I prefer the two because you know what you're doing. You know that when you type in the Search field it will perform a search and when you type in the URL field it will enter an address. It gets too confusing the other way.
Too bad it has to be one of those cooperative protocols - I can see where it would take some major revisions to how most protocols work (if not all of them). Will be a nice feature - maybe there will be a companion API that will allow querying the host for privacy status. Still having a hard time imagining how you can avoid having something piggyback if it really wants to.
I think it's just an extra HTTP header isn't it? Extra headers are allowed for in the original spec, I don't think it will be a major technical job to obey it, just a matter of will.
It is no coincidence that Chrome is now the last major browser to get on board. A cynical person might think this is the other companies trying to weaken Google, knowing how much they depend on advertising revenue.
Man I HATE that feature. I used it on IE9 and it sucks balls. I prefer the two because you know what you're doing. You know that when you type in the Search field it will perform a search and when you type in the URL field it will enter an address. It gets too confusing the other way.
there's a clear downside to it, but the ease of opening a tab and being right there in adress bar to be able to do a search is a plus. At least as an option I d like it, a lot.
IE9 also supports a second protection feature called "tracking protection", which is essentially just client-side domain blocking based on various lists updated by privacy organisations.
I think this is what is necessary for the feature to actually work. The impression that I get is that "do not track" is simply asking nicely for organizations to not do what's in their best interests as a favor to you. Their best interests is to hoard every scrap of data they can on you for later data mining, so what is the incentive to not record it? Especially when it's hard or impossible to verify the organization actually complies with your request? You need something better than an empty privacy theater, you need to avoid giving them any more data than you have to.
Here is what I do to keep google from tracking, it not 100% but it is better than nothing.
One do not use a @gmail.com account they read your emails so they know what things you are doing and are interested in.
Next, I never click on in web page ads from google. If I am interest in the ad I open a new window and type in the link so they do know if i was directed there from a google ad or another website.
I also use Little snitch and have it block the web browsers from contacting the google analytic ip addresses.
Lastly, if I go to google website and search for something I will connect through a proxy server first so they do not know what part of the world I am in. This has interesting effects since google places local content base on your IP up first, so if your IP says your in China then you get all kinds of china stuff.
If more people did this google analytic would be worthless.
Says nothing about HTML5 client-side local storage. That is a major case of privacy abuse that is flying under the radar. Are websites exploiting it? Yes, definitely.
Can someone explain the difference between this and Safari's "Private Browsing" feature?
Do Not Track will prevent servers from tracking your presence, assuming they voluntarily abide by it, whilst Private Browsing will prevent your Safari app from logging your presence locally (I.e.: History).
Do Not Track will prevent servers from tracking your presence, assuming they voluntarily abide by it, whilst Private Browsing will prevent your Safari app from logging your presence locally (I.e.: History).
Thanks solipsism. Doesn't Private Browsing prevent cookies too? If so, do you think having "Do Not Track" enabled will cause some web sites to not "work", similar to how some sites give you the message "You must have cookies enabled to....." do whatever you're trying to do on their site?
Its good Apple is adding this to Safari - but its a small modification - not something needing to be tied to an OS release, unless...a couple of questions come to mind since this was mentioned with regards to Lion.
Once Lion rolls out updates to Leopard will probably stop (if Apple follows historical practices of supporting the most recent 2 releases), this means the end of PPC updates and the end of Mac 32-bit Safari updates (presumably) since Snow Leopard and Lion use 64-bit Safari.
If Apple stops 32-bit Safari updates with Lion rollout (and the end of Leopard support) will Apple continue updating the 32-bit Windows version of Safari? It always seemed odd to me that they even offered it on Windows, but this would be the prime opportunity for Apple to toss it over the side. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
Comments
Are websites actually abiding by this feature?
Apparently the "do not track" feature is "gaining ad industry support".
IE9 also supports a second protection feature called "tracking protection", which is essentially just client-side domain blocking based on various lists updated by privacy organisations.
Neat, but won't use it until they merge the URL + Search bars like Chrome.
Man I HATE that feature. I used it on IE9 and it sucks balls. I prefer the two because you know what you're doing. You know that when you type in the Search field it will perform a search and when you type in the URL field it will enter an address. It gets too confusing the other way.
Too bad it has to be one of those cooperative protocols - I can see where it would take some major revisions to how most protocols work (if not all of them). Will be a nice feature - maybe there will be a companion API that will allow querying the host for privacy status. Still having a hard time imagining how you can avoid having something piggyback if it really wants to.
I think it's just an extra HTTP header isn't it? Extra headers are allowed for in the original spec, I don't think it will be a major technical job to obey it, just a matter of will.
It is no coincidence that Chrome is now the last major browser to get on board. A cynical person might think this is the other companies trying to weaken Google, knowing how much they depend on advertising revenue.
Man I HATE that feature. I used it on IE9 and it sucks balls. I prefer the two because you know what you're doing. You know that when you type in the Search field it will perform a search and when you type in the URL field it will enter an address. It gets too confusing the other way.
there's a clear downside to it, but the ease of opening a tab and being right there in adress bar to be able to do a search is a plus. At least as an option I d like it, a lot.
Apparently the "do not track" feature is "gaining ad industry support".
IE9 also supports a second protection feature called "tracking protection", which is essentially just client-side domain blocking based on various lists updated by privacy organisations.
I think this is what is necessary for the feature to actually work. The impression that I get is that "do not track" is simply asking nicely for organizations to not do what's in their best interests as a favor to you. Their best interests is to hoard every scrap of data they can on you for later data mining, so what is the incentive to not record it? Especially when it's hard or impossible to verify the organization actually complies with your request? You need something better than an empty privacy theater, you need to avoid giving them any more data than you have to.
One do not use a @gmail.com account they read your emails so they know what things you are doing and are interested in.
Next, I never click on in web page ads from google. If I am interest in the ad I open a new window and type in the link so they do know if i was directed there from a google ad or another website.
I also use Little snitch and have it block the web browsers from contacting the google analytic ip addresses.
Lastly, if I go to google website and search for something I will connect through a proxy server first so they do not know what part of the world I am in. This has interesting effects since google places local content base on your IP up first, so if your IP says your in China then you get all kinds of china stuff.
If more people did this google analytic would be worthless.
Firefox 4 = implemented & released for public
Internet Explorer 9 = implemented & released for public
Safari for Lion = implemented (still in development)
Chrome = unknown, not yet
They do it through an official addon
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/d...fdgfjilccfpfoe
Its the same thing
I also use Little snitch and have it block the web browsers from contacting the google analytic ip addresses.
I use a Safari extension called 'Incognito' to block Google Analytics.
http://www.orbicule.com/incognito/
Can someone explain the difference between this and Safari's "Private Browsing" feature?
Do Not Track will prevent servers from tracking your presence, assuming they voluntarily abide by it, whilst Private Browsing will prevent your Safari app from logging your presence locally (I.e.: History).
Do Not Track will prevent servers from tracking your presence, assuming they voluntarily abide by it, whilst Private Browsing will prevent your Safari app from logging your presence locally (I.e.: History).
Thanks solipsism. Doesn't Private Browsing prevent cookies too? If so, do you think having "Do Not Track" enabled will cause some web sites to not "work", similar to how some sites give you the message "You must have cookies enabled to....." do whatever you're trying to do on their site?
Once Lion rolls out updates to Leopard will probably stop (if Apple follows historical practices of supporting the most recent 2 releases), this means the end of PPC updates and the end of Mac 32-bit Safari updates (presumably) since Snow Leopard and Lion use 64-bit Safari.
If Apple stops 32-bit Safari updates with Lion rollout (and the end of Leopard support) will Apple continue updating the 32-bit Windows version of Safari? It always seemed odd to me that they even offered it on Windows, but this would be the prime opportunity for Apple to toss it over the side. It'll be interesting to see what happens.