Re: [projectvrm] DNT question

[Doc Searls < >]

Do Not Track is not just about cookies. Nor is it a matter of being "given a 
choice" by a site.

While the calf-cow model is alive and well, we can tell the cows we don't 
want cookies. This can be done with an HTTP header. 

There is more about this at http://donottrack.us, which is maintained by 
Stanford researchers Jonathan Mayer and Arvind Narayanan.

All your major browsers support do not track in an opt-in way. Microsoft is 
breaking ranks by turning it on by default.

I believe browsers, and Do Not Track abilities in particular, are VRM tools. 
We should encourage (and contribute to) the development of any tools that 
provide individuals with both independence and means for engagement. A DNT 
signal is indeed a step toward engagement, and not just prophylaxis. It is an 
expression of intent not to be tracked. It does not say "I don't want to do 
business with you."

Toward actual engagement, here's one thing I wrote on the topic a few months 
back:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vrm/2012/02/23/how-about-using-the-no-track-button-we-already-have/

Note how may more DNT players have showed up since then. I'd link to them, 
but have a very lousy connection here at the airport in Minneapolis. Browsers 
are barely working.

Doc

On Aug 8, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Jim Bursch 
<
 >
 wrote:

> Thank you very much for the replies! Very helpful.
> 
> Part of the reason I wasn't following the DNT discussion closely is because 
> it looked liked it was framed as a political problem, which has less 
> interest for me (I feel powerless over politics).
> 
> It seems to me that there is a big technical issue that needs to be solved 
> (cookie management), and when it is solved, the political issue will be 
> narrowed and clarified.
> 
> As a web developer, I set cookies that are essential to the operation of my 
> site. But every cookie I set is essentially identical to the browser -- 
> it's a file containing some data, plus an expiration time. At the very 
> least, I should also be indicating something about the purpose of the 
> cookie (this is a session cookie, or it's an authentication cookie, or 
> ...). I think that is some kind of standards or protocol thing (html?). 
> Where is that being discussed?
> 
> I can see now how there would be some powerful interest in preventing users 
> from have too much easy control over their cookies. Even if a small 
> minority of people can easily restrict cookies in their browser, it would 
> have a big effect           on the integrity of BIG DATA and it's claims.
>  
> Jim Bursch
> 310-869-5340
> 
> 
 
> 
> 
> Headspace.info: Video Arts and Entertainment Directory
> 
> http://headspace.info
> 
> 
> Producer
> NoHo20 presents: "Critic's Dilemma"
> 
> http://noho20.com
> On 8/8/2012 10:52 AM, John Wunderlich wrote:
>> Jim;
>> 
>> I think the DNT question is less technical and more political. The issue 
>> at hand is whether DNT should be turned on by default. As currently 
>> proposed, if I understand it correctly, DNT is a notice to the web site 
>> that activity should not be tracked. It doesn't actually implement any 
>> technical blocks. But by turning it on by default, Microsoft is 
>> implementing what might be called a form of 'Privacy by Design'. Since so 
>> much of the 'free' Internet depends on users being the product, with 
>> advertisors and data aggregators as customers, this challenges the 
>> business model of a number of companies, not least of which is Google. One 
>> therefore assumes that the Chrome browser will not take the same approach, 
>> and this might lead to an interesting market test of peoples' interest in 
>> privacy.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2012-08-08, at 11:30 AM, Jim Bursch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> I haven't been paying close attention to the DNT discussion, so this may 
>>> be a dumb question. It's also more of a technical question.
>>> 
>>> Isn't tracking a function of cookies? So, killing cookies will kill 
>>> tracking. Am I wrong?
>>> 
>>> If I routinely and frequently delete cookies, I am performing my own DNT 
>>> -- is that correct?
>>> 
>>> I have started doing that, but it is inconvenient mainly because of the 
>>> poor choices for cookie management, which is a browser problem.
>>> 
>>> Again, if I am correct that tracking is a cookie management problem, here 
>>> is what I would want in a cookie management system:
>>> 
>>> 1. Clear, standard descriptions of the purpose of a given cookie. I want 
>>> to know if it is a tracking cookie, or an authentication cookie, or a 
>>> data storage cookie, etc. Right now I can only guess at the purpose of a 
>>> cookie, given its content.
>>> 
>>> 2. I want to be able to flag cookies that I would like to keep (e.g. 
>>> authentication so I don't have to repeat login), and flag cookies that I 
>>> don't want (e.g. tracking cookies).
>>> 
>>> 3. I want to be able to create different rules for how different cookies 
>>> are handled, based on their function/purpose -- e.g. keep cookies I like, 
>>> delete cookies I don't want automatically.
>>> 
>>> It seems to me that the cookie management system would be a simple 
>>> browser plugin in the short term. The problem would be establishing a 
>>> protocol for cookie meta data (type, function, purpose, etc.)
>>> 
>>> Am I over-simplifying?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jim Bursch
>>> 310-869-5340
>>> 
>>> 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Headspace.info: Video Arts and Entertainment Directory
>>> 
>>> http://headspace.info
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Producer
>>> NoHo20 presents: "Critic's Dilemma"
>>> 
>>> http://noho20.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - 
>> www.avg.com
>> 
>> Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5186 - Release Date: 08/08/12
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>