Hacker News Reader

Comment by baddox | Hacker News Reader

Why does one choice of default "destroy intent," while the other doesn't? Why do you assume the default setting of allowing tracking is the correct one?

View on HN

More importantly, why is "on by default" supposed to be "bad" when the entire system is designed to protect people's privacy?

Microsoft don't sound like the problem.

DNT is not designed to protect everyone's privacy, it was meant a way to grow a clear sign that people don't want to be tracked. If browsers really wanted to protect people's privacy, they'd block 3rd party cookies by default and show 1st party cookies as a warning.

All good points.

The default setting should be "No Intent" - I neither make claims as to whether I wish to be tracked/have personalization, nor do I make claims as to whether I do not. A browser should not bake in any claims about what I desire.

A browser should protect my privacy, give me tools to filter out content (images, ads, off site material), protect my browsing history, etc...

This is all besides the point - when every browser sends a flag that states "Do Not Track" - then "Do Not Track" loses all meaning.

Because one choice of default was the agreed to by the parties that decided on DNT as a mechanism, and one was the opposite of that. That is, the choice of default was a central part of the intent.

Its not a matter of "correct", its a matter of what people bought into when the initially decided to support DNT.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com