Will Do Not Track make a difference to web privacy?

[illumination]

Earlier this week the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) released the first drafts of two new privacy standards aimed at simplifying and standardising how websites read and comply with web users’ privacy settings. So is it going to make a difference?
Read More

 

[iPanik]

Not where it matters, no.
Sites with dodgy content, like pr0n sites, does have a habit of not conforming to official or de-facto standards, so why should they conform to this one?

 

[AyeAyeCaptain]

You have a valid point iPanik, but could they not be forced to do so? Okay I know, in general people do not like been forced to do anything and rightly so, but how could they go about making sure they conform?? Am a bit clueless in this area, that is why I add my little input and ask for a response to expand and clarify further!

 

[Hungry Man]

W3C standards aren't enforced by any legal means. Instead browsers work by assuming sites meet those standards and if they don't it can cause errors.

 

[iPanik]

This standard only covers advertisers and analyses, so it wont do any good against malware.
I've read the drafts and so far the system is based primarily on trust between the user and a given site. Here's how it works.

1. The user enables Do Not Track and enters a site.
2. The browser then tells the server that you do not want to be tracked.
3. The server then responds if it intends to honor that or not. It can also start a negotiation process, to make you change your mind.

The site can decide to deny you access until you add them to an exceptions list, log in or whatever.

The document describing compliance and enforcement is still very much a draft and doesn't contain much information so far. However it does say that if DNT is enabled then the site should delete all the info they have on you. The way i interpret that, it also includes that they should delete any cookies they have on your computer.
It only gives suggestions as to how this can be enforced so that sites don't just ignore it, the words "public statements" and "external audits" does come up though.

Hope that made any sense

 

[LochNess]

I checked the box to 'not be tracked' but "me thinks' it's only to make myself feel better ;-)

I always assume I'm being tracked, in some obscure way, and 'travel the web' accordingly... the law is vague without serious accountability...

 

[AyeAyeCaptain]

This standard only covers advertisers and analyses, so it wont do any good against malware.
I've read the drafts and so far the system is based primarily on trust between the user and a given site. Here's how it works.

1. The user enables Do Not Track and enters a site.
2. The browser then tells the server that you do not want to be tracked.
3. The server then responds if it intends to honor that or not. It can also start a negotiation process, to make you change your mind.

The site can decide to deny you access until you add them to an exceptions list, log in or whatever.

The document describing compliance and enforcement is still very much a draft and doesn't contain much information so far. However it does say that if DNT is enabled then the site should delete all the info they have on you. The way i interpret that, it also includes that they should delete any cookies they have on your computer.
It only gives suggestions as to how this can be enforced so that sites don't just ignore it, the words "public statements" and "external audits" does come up though.

Hope that made any sense

It does, thank you for taking the time to explain it in laymens terms for me (and anyone else reading), makes much more sense to me now. :biggrin: