Yahoo To Implement Do Not Track 40
Trailrunner7 writes "Yahoo has decided that it's now time to start implementing a Do Not Track system across its various Web properties. The company is one of the last large Web content providers to officially commit to using a DNT technology, and Yahoo said that it plans to have the system implemented by early summer. Yahoo officials said that their Do Not Track implementation has been in development since 2011 and that it will be a simple way for consumers to turn on the DNT option."
Wow... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
More and more people have been using a form of do not track on Yahoo for a while now, it's called I "do not use".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, talk about "who cares". They actually deleted my email account and its heavy load of two text emails. I thought most businesses were smart enough to hold onto 'dead subscribers'. But after they've basically spent 5 years moving stuff around on their pages without really changing the content, I became increasingly annoyed at having to get used to a new format without any new content or content improvement. Change without actual change is a waste of my time.
More recently I've found that clicking on
Re: (Score:1)
Thing is, I usually have three people sleeping about 8' from me when I'm READING frickin stuff on the internet, so I dont want video and sound.
Mute?
Re: (Score:1)
That would be swell if I remembered to check it when I open the computer so as to avoid the volume being turned up to 11 by my seven year old the night before. But at 6am, pre-coffee...
Plus when I pause something because I dont want it, and you start it back up again because you think I do, or dont care if I do or not, then you'll no longer be of interest to me.
If nothing else, its streaming video that counts towards my cap, which I'm not watching and dont want to watch.
Not sure if April fool prank... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I ranted about that earlier.
"Yahoo has a backbone" - "April Fools! They are just as evil as they were yesterday".
Let's *suppose* it's not a prank. Yahoo has a chance to make a comeback by being Not-Google. Make a legit declaration verified by auditors that privacy protection really is in place as much as they can.
I would die laughing if the answer to Google's evil is ... wait for it ... Yahoo.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's *suppose* it's not a prank. Yahoo has a chance to make a comeback by being Not-Google.
Except that Google has had do-not-track tools in place for a long time now. Yahoo would need to do more than that. Auditors might be a good idea... actually, that's something that Google should probably consider.
Re:Google has had... (Score:2)
My view is that whatever Do Not Track tools Google has/used to have, either now or very soon they will be eclipsed by the "we will track you more" anti-privacy policy.
Re: (Score:2)
My view is that whatever Do Not Track tools Google has/used to have, either now or very soon they will be eclipsed by the "we will track you more" anti-privacy policy.
Upon what do you base that view? What I see of Google's privacy policy and behavior around privacy -- both what I see publicly and what I see internally (I work for Google) -- leads me to a very different conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Upon what do you base that view? What I see of Google's privacy policy and behavior around privacy -- both what I see publicly and what I see internally (I work for Google) -- leads me to a very different conclusion.
you make a very big assumption that anyone trusts you. If it can be done, it will be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Upon what do you base that view? What I see of Google's privacy policy and behavior around privacy -- both what I see publicly and what I see internally (I work for Google) -- leads me to a very different conclusion.
you make a very big assumption that anyone trusts you. If it can be done, it will be done.
I don't think I'm making any assumptions, just drawing conclusions based on observations. I guess my one assumption is that one can draw conclusions and apply them to the future based on observations of the past. But if we throw out that assumption, well, then we can't ever know anything.
Also, your statement that "if it can be done it will be done" is obviously false. It's essentially the most severe possible extension of the slippery slope fallacy. I'm not saying that we can discount the possibility
Re: (Score:2)
Also, your statement that "if it can be done it will be done" is obviously false. It's essentially the most severe possible extension of the slippery slope fallacy.
Good heavens, not even absolutely false. Better yet, the question would be, if it can be done - why would it not be done?
I have no fear of large corporations. But not trusting them is not fear. Just common sense. There are shareholders that need served, and they are serving them, not me. There's a long litany of corporations who have done some shady and illegal things. And there really isn't much punishment when they get caught. All in all, it's pretty profitable.
I don't lose any sleep over it, because
Re: (Score:2)
Also, your statement that "if it can be done it will be done" is obviously false. It's essentially the most severe possible extension of the slippery slope fallacy.
Good heavens, not even absolutely false. Better yet, the question would be, if it can be done - why would it not be done?
Ah, now that's a more reasonable statement/question. Why indeed would it not be done? If doing it would destroy their business, you can be pretty certain it will not be done. If it would violate the moral sensibilities of the people in charge -- assuming they have any -- you can also have some assurance it will not be done.
I have no fear of large corporations. But not trusting them is not fear. Just common sense. There are shareholders that need served, and they are serving them, not me.
But in the case of Google, the leaders of the company have very little motivation to serve the shareholders. Because of the voting stock structure, Larry Page and Sergey Brin outvote
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of like a sting operation.
Re: (Score:1)
corporate weaseling (Score:2, Informative)
and that it will be a simple way for consumers to turn on the DNT option.
Why dont they simply say they will honor the DNT browser preference ? Can we expect corporate weaseling when they announce it and it turns out to be some cookie based, yahoo-specific, joke of a solution ?
April's Fool (Score:2)
Is it just me or this year's April's Fool is sucking hard here on Slashdot?
Come on, don't fail me this time Slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
omgponies was the last time any real effort was put in.
A year or two ago they introduced achievements, but they actually kept them around (which was admittedly kinda funny).
Translation (Score:3)
"Our lawyers have assured us that we can legally redefine 'do not track' to not really offer you any protection at all."
Re: (Score:2)
I've always read DNT that way. Just reject the cookies and pixels outright, with plugin_of_choice or IE9 Tracking Protection or what-have-you.
Not April Fool's (Score:4, Informative)
This is from three days ago on cnet. [cnet.com]
Does not appear to be an AF joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could have RTFA from March 30th.
Relevant Dilbert strip (Score:2)
"Yahoo officials said that their Do Not Track implementation has been in development since 2011 and that it will be a simple way for consumers to turn on the DNT option."
Link [dilbert.com]
Stop The Yahoo Spam Tsunami First (Score:1)
Highly illogical (Score:3)
Tracking who is not tracked while not tracking them.
Hmm.
Oh, right, it's that stupid day when I should stay away from Slashdot, whoops.