Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Yahoo! Your Rights Online

Yahoo To Implement Do Not Track 40

Posted by samzenpus
from the stop-looking-at-me dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo To Implement Do Not Track

Comments Filter:
  • Wow... (Score:4, Funny)

    by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Sunday April 01, 2012 @09:41AM (#39540641)
    People still use Yahoo? Did I just pass through a wormhole to 2003?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • by ciotog (1098035)

        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?

        • 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.

  • by fph il quozientatore (971015) on Sunday April 01, 2012 @09:48AM (#39540673) Homepage
    ...or serious news.
    • 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.

      • by swillden (191260)

        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.

        • 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.

          • by swillden (191260)

            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.

            • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

              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.

              • by swillden (191260)

                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

                • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

                  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

                  • by swillden (191260)

                    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

        • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)
          I cannot imagine for a minute that anyone who uses a "do not track" option will be tracked specifically because of the request.

          Sort of like a sting operation.

    • The press release [yahoo.com] is from March 29. A company acting kind of sensibly? Here's hoping it's true.
  • corporate weaseling (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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 ?

  • 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!

    • by jcreus (2547928)
      Frist April Fool's Day without CmdrTaco, maybe?
      • by Ihmhi (1206036)

        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).

  • by pushing-robot (1037830) on Sunday April 01, 2012 @09:59AM (#39540743)

    "Our lawyers have assured us that we can legally redefine 'do not track' to not really offer you any protection at all."

    • by game kid (805301)

      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)

    by CannonballHead (842625) on Sunday April 01, 2012 @10:35AM (#39540899)

    This is from three days ago on cnet. [cnet.com]

    Does not appear to be an AF joke.

  • "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]

  • Yahoo, this is all fine but I think the rest of the world would be happier if you would first stop the tsunami of spam email that comes from @yahoo.com servers. It's ridiculous. Unless you want to block every moron who still uses an @yahoo.com email address, you are stuck putting up with a tidal wave of spam.
  • by RedHat Rocky (94208) on Sunday April 01, 2012 @11:53AM (#39541453)

    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.

"Morality is one thing. Ratings are everything." - A Network 23 executive on "Max Headroom"

Working...