FTC calls out Google's Chrome over Do Not Track

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by lotuseclat79, Apr 21, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,097
  2. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Well gee, whodathunkit? And why would the biggest (civilian) data collector in the world embrace something that prevents a lot of that collection? In other news, humans breathe oxygen. As far as Opera, well, they're just Opera. God only knows what goes on in their heads.
     
  3. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    All Developers/Vendors have to Respect & Adopt the Federal Trade Commission Consumer Privacy Protection guidelines.
    Legislation is the same for everyone.
    (Regardless of the fact that 'the bulk of Google's revenue comes from its online advertising business,
    which could be affected by Do Not Track').
     
  4. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Googles' and Facebooks' many trips to the principals office over their data shenanigans, U.S policies for data collection/surveillance, yes I feel quite confident in FTC legislation and their ability to enforce it. My guess is they are calling out Google and Opera over what amounts to nearly useless "anti-tracking" so they can score points for something or from someone. Yeah, I'm a pessimist, call me what you like. I've seen enough of these so called "wins for consumers" get poked full of loopholes, stuck in legal limbo to never get passed and so on, to be getting thrilled over anything.
     
  5. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    Complete failure to understand the DNT thing. It requires server-side support. Implementation in browsers is useless unless the other side (i.e., advertisers mainly) supports and honors this. Good luck forcing them.
     
  6. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Exactly, as it stands now, it's "pretty please don't track me"...uh sure, that will get somewhere.
     
  7. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    Google's Keep My Opt-Outs extension is currently far more effective.
     
  8. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    There's another extension, by Privacy Choice. -https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/eoibfeagdaaoimfpfalgbmmegagdconp

    May be worth taking a look at.

    There's also Chromeblock by Abine. -https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/epanfjkfahimkgomnigadpkobaefekcd

    There's also TACO by Abine.

    I personally kill ads and trackers via blacklist.
     
  9. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    The FTC Technical Advisory has been aware of these issues.

    Unless you believe that you are the Only One :rolleyes:
    who's aware of the 'server-side' issue...:rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2011
  10. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    Apparently not; otherwise they would not pursue such useless crap. :rolleyes:

    (Oh, maybe there is some deeper intent beyond pursuing such useless crap, such as to distract others from really important issues. :p)
     
  11. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    Who are you to question the Technical Advisory of FTC?
    Are you aware of these people credentials/expertise?
    You throw mad at an entire organization as simple as that, ah?
    If FTC has a Hidden Agenda, then, reveal it. :p
     
  12. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    A person capable of using his own brain for critical thinking. If you disturbed by that, then just go and wave in front of the FTC (or NSA) building, celebrating their infallible instinct for irrelevant issues. :rolleyes: :thumbd:
     
  13. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    Go to the Google building instead...:rolleyes: :thumbd:

    Still waiting for the "Hidden Agenda" of FTC...:thumbd:
     
  14. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    Mind to suggest how is a "standard" that assumes voluntary agreement of the party with exactly the opposite interests compared to those of the users going to help wrt privacy? Or, perhaps how is FTC going to force all the webservers out there to serve the "privacy" headers, and advertisers to honor them?
     
  15. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    First of all, let's see what they will manage to do (as it seems Google is Not very happy with it...)
    Second, do you believe that You are the Only One who has these questions?
    This is the first step. Unless, you prefer to totally surrender to Corporatocracy...
     
  16. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    Nothing useful to users, for sure. Since the whole idea is just whacky. "Oh pretty please, do not track me, you will not get any money for that, but pretty pretty please with a sugar on the top... do not track me." ROTFLMAO.

    And the last one, as far as DNT is concerned... "Dead end" ways of finding out which attempts do NOT lead to the desired goal have already been extensively explored and tested by the famous (fictious) Czech genie Jára da Cimrman - no need to reinvent the wheel here.
     
  17. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Sure, I suppose that's why Google offers to do exactly just that, right?

    ROTFLMAO, indeed.
     
  18. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    Well, LOL, just LOL... This is the client-side "feature" that FTC wants Google to implement. That baaaad news, I mean really baaaad, is - it is just useless unless the server-side part of this business actually does something. You can install tons of similar extensions, they will just occupy your RAM doing nothing useful, until the other end of the connection honors this DNT request.
     
  19. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    Unless, you play the game of Google...
    I stand on the Consumers' side.
    I don't get paid by either Google or Microsoft.
    Sorry, but I canNot say the same for some here...
    What is today Voluntary (on the server-side part) can be Obligatory tomorrow.
    This is how things start with Legislation...;)
    Still waiting for the FTC 'Hidden Agenda'...
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2011
  20. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    Right. Like - stripsearching in the airports, fingerprinting, biometric passwords and similar totalitarian crap. Why not dictate to others what kind of headers must a webserver return. Sure will work - they will just move the advertising webservers to an island in the middle of nowhere. Remember Slysoft? :rolleyes:

    Bye, end of debate from me.
     
  21. PJC

    PJC Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Posts:
    2,959
    Location:
    Internet
    Be patient; one step at a time...;)
    Big Brother has plans for you; without you...;)
    *
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2011
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.