DNT seems like a pretty crappy solution.
I think a lot of people will enable DNT not realizing they'll get exactly the same number of ads, just less relevant. And the web marketing companies who are doing evil things will just ignore the header.
I think a lot of people will enable DNT not realizing they'll get exactly the same number of ads, just less relevant. And the web marketing companies who are doing evil things will just ignore the header.
But if you really don't want to be tracked, can you trust marketers to respect this header? If not, what's the point?
Also, some marketers might be honest, but that data may end-up in the wrong hands eventually. So if you care about privacy, any period of time in which you aren't tracked is a net win for your privacy.
Not to mention that this flag may end up being a useful argument in case of a lawsuit.
So DNT is a mechanism for blocking the honest marketers that we trust to respect our communicated wishes, while still permitting the dishonest marketers to do what they will? As far as I can tell, DNT requires enforcement legislation to be effective.
some also realize that it's smart to not piss off people
How would someone tell that an advertiser is not respecting DNT and therefore be pissed off? Looking for suspicious cookies from third-party sites? The ads seem too personalized?
The EFF explains this much better: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/02/what-does-track-do-not...
This isn't to make anyone untrackable. This is to make a far more consumer-friendly opt-out mechanism among those that are participating voluntarily.
If it becomes legislation, which is what is being debated, then it is somewhat like a DMCA for users. If an advertising company tries to circumvent it, they are acting illegally. This isn't a silver bullet for privacy, but it is really powerful.
Much less data/less identifying data gathered -> slightly less relevant ads and a huge win fore everyone. Not that this will lead to that but it would be great if it did.