• Ephera@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    18 days ago

    Nah, the idea was sound. When Do Not Track was introduced, most jurisdictions had privacy laws which required users to opt-out. Sending this DNT header could have been an indication of users not wanting to be tracked and therefore would have served as legally binding opt-out.

    It was Microsoft that killed it, by having Internet Explorer send the DNT header by default. When it’s sent by default, without users actively choosing to activate it, then it cannot serve as a legally binding opt-out anymore.

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        The GDPR kind of does the job that DNT could have done, if that’s what you’re thinking of…? Tracking generally needs to be opt-in for EU citizen, so you don’t need to send a cautionary opt-out signal anymore.

        Admittedly, the “most jurisdictions” is me guessing, based on how I expect laws to work in most countries. As in, I expect most countries to have some law that says you can’t take someone’s data, if they don’t want you to take it. And then tracking is/was somewhat of a grey area, because companies argued that tracking is totally in the interest of users, like, who doesn’t want to see personalized ads? But yeah, if you then remove any doubt by sending them an opt-out, then it’s most definitely not a grey area anymore.