Hacker News Reader

Could this perhaps have been Microsoft's intention? They've implemented a widely unpopular feature that is bound to be circumvented on a large scale. They basically bastardized the execution of DNT, making it moot while at the same time protecting them from any personal liability. Or am I being cynical?

View on HN

Could be, but to be fair their implementation is in line with the DNT draft which says that DNT=1 is a valid default for user agents. Maybe the draft writers didn't think through what the consequences would be for DNT support if DNT=1 became the default in any majority of browsers.

The way I see it either the consequences for not respecting DNT need to be greater somehow or the default implementation can't be DNT=1 because third parties will simply ignore it. Without consequences, a default of DNT=1 just weakens the draft and hurts the people who really do want to block everything.

You're absolutely right. MS gets to say "We have the safest browser" and users get nothing but a false sense of security. Google and FF look bad for not implementing this same feature, even though it doesn't protect the user from anything whatsoever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com