×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Yahoo Stops Honoring 'Do-Not-Track' Settings

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the doesn't-fit-the-new-logo dept.

Yahoo! 300

An anonymous reader writes "When web browsers started implementing 'do-not-track' settings, Yahoo got some respect for being the first of the huge tech companies to honor those settings. Unfortunately, that respect has now gone out the door. As of this week, Yahoo will no longer alter their data collection if a user doesn't want to be tracked. They say there are two reasons for this. First, they want to provide a personalized web-browsing experience, which isn't possible using do-not-track. Second, they don't think do-not-track is viable. They say, '[W]e've been at the heart of conversations surrounding how to develop the most user-friendly standard. However, we have yet to see a single standard emerge that is effective, easy to use and has been adopted by the broader tech industry.' It looks like this is another blow to privacy on the web."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yahoo, kill yourself! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899627)

Horrible decision, a standard isn't being honored "EVERYWHERE" so you decide to undermine it entirely without replacement? What's the REAL reason, money?

Sell your assets and gtfo!

Re:Yahoo, kill yourself! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899681)

Horrible decision, a standard isn't being honored "EVERYWHERE" so you decide to undermine it entirely without replacement? What's the REAL reason, money?

Sell your assets and gtfo!

As far as I know Google doesn't honor it either on their services, but Microsoft do, which is an interesting situation

Re:Yahoo, kill yourself! (5, Informative)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 8 months ago | (#46899749)

Google and Yahoo make money by selling information that they collect from users. Microsoft makes money by selling software. The typical person is a Microsoft customer, but a Google / Yahoo product.

Re:Yahoo, kill yourself! (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#46900073)

Google and Yahoo make money by selling information that they collect from users. Microsoft makes money by selling software.

Microsoft is losing the battle for online advertising, so they are instead trying to poison the market. In MSIE 10 and 11, the "do not track" is on by default, which means the user never actually made a decision to set it. Microsoft's original plan was to diminish the ability of ad agencies like Google to collect information. But instead, they gave those agencies an excuse to ignore the setting, since no human made a decision to set it. Some more ethical ad agencies check the browser ID and only ignore the setting if it is MSIE. Unfortunately, ethics and advertising seldom go together.

Re:Yahoo, kill yourself! (4, Insightful)

CreatureComfort (741652) | about 8 months ago | (#46900165)

So you are arguing that privacy/security on by default is a bad thing?

Re: Yahoo, kill yourself! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900267)

When the privacy/security decision is left up to the advertiser, it isn't a viable solution, and is deeply flawed. The DNT header gives additional information for which your identity can be singled out with..

Re: Yahoo, kill yourself! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900293)

When the privacy/security decision is left up to the advertiser, it is deeply flawed and an unfeasible solution. Additionally the DNT header grants the tracker additional entropy for which your identity can be singled out with.

It was a really silly idea, nobody really expected these guys would honer this, even if it did have legislative backing.

Re:Yahoo, kill yourself! (3, Insightful)

Monoman (8745) | about 8 months ago | (#46900351)

Privacy/Security != Anonymity

There are subtle differences depending on the interpretations.

Re:Yahoo, kill yourself! (3, Interesting)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 8 months ago | (#46900027)

Horrible decision, a standard isn't being honored "EVERYWHERE" so you decide to undermine it entirely without replacement? What's the REAL reason, money?

Sell your assets and gtfo!

As far as I know Google doesn't honor it either on their services, but Microsoft do, which is an interesting situation

That's because Microsoft, despite whatever flaws they may have, makes all their money selling actual products -- Windows, Office, Games for Xbox, etc.......

Companies like Google and Yahoo, on the other hand, have no actual products. Their revenue depends entirely on advertising. YOU are the product and you are being sold to advertisers.

Nothing surprising at all about Google and Yahoo not honoring Do Not Track.

Re:Yahoo, kill yourself! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900113)

Of course Google and Yahoo have actual products. Just because they give access to their products in return for personal data, does not mean that that product ceases to exist.

Re:Yahoo, kill yourself! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900207)

Not really. What you're thinking of as a 'product' is more accurately described as 'bait'. Calling it a 'product' is akin to calling a fisher's lure or net the product, rather than calling the *fish* the product.

Re: Yahoo, kill yourself! (2)

Scowler (667000) | about 8 months ago | (#46899801)

Maybe they see the irony in maintaining a list of people who don't want to be tracked.

Re: Yahoo, kill yourself! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899885)

That's not how it works, it's not a list unless they make a list. Not to mention they championed the idea and were early adopters.

Re: Yahoo, kill yourself! (3, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 8 months ago | (#46900111)

That's not how it works, it's not a list unless they make a list. Not to mention they championed the idea and were early adopters.

Yahoo pretended to support Do Not Track only because they figured anyone stupid enough to actually use Yahoo for anything was too stupid to figure out how to turn it on.

Then Microsoft made it on by default in Internet Explorer, still the most widely used browser and probably used by 98% of the people stupid enough to use Yahoo for anything. All of a sudden, Yahoo didn't think Do Not Track was such a good idea any more.

Re:Yahoo, kill yourself! (5, Informative)

nmb3000 (741169) | about 8 months ago | (#46899859)

Horrible decision, a standard isn't being honored ANYWHERE so you decide to undermine it entirely without replacement?

FTFY.

The simple fact is that Do-Not-Track was a damned bogus idea from the outset. Saying to the massive web of advertising conglamorates and third parties -- all of which make more money the more they can identify you down to an individual -- "Won't you kindly not track me? That would just be great, thanks" is akin to asking the mob nicely not to burn your place down when you refuse to pay protection money, or calling up the NSA and asking them nicely to stop spying on your personal affairs.

If you don't want to be tracked, you need to take steps to make it happen yourself. The tools are there -- use them. If enough people start blocking all forms of advertising, perhaps the intrusiveness and privacy violation will recede. Or maybe the entire advertising industry will collapse (one can always dream).

Re:Yahoo, kill yourself! (2)

Bengie (1121981) | about 8 months ago | (#46900175)

I agree, asking a remote server to not record the data you send it means you trust the server. If you do not trust it, then either to not use it or do not send it they data you're sending it.

I did take such steps... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900239)

By programming this application:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> * "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

** "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

*** "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Re:Yahoo, kill yourself! (5, Interesting)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 8 months ago | (#46900279)

Part of the problem is what I believe to be a flawed business model for marketers. They feel that they need to somehow "steal" people's information and use it to "force" adds on them. The phrase "targeted" adds suggests a hostile approach. My impression is that most people want to see informative adds for products that they might buy. If it were easy for customers to craft their on online profiles so that they would see adds of interest to them, advertisers would be able to directly provide relevant information.

Right now I'm not in the market for a car - all the adds in the world won't do any good. In a few years when I am ready to buy, I will want to see information on the types of cars that I might consider buying. The way things are set up now, immediately after I buy a car I will be flooded with car adds - despite the fact that a recent purchases is the least likely to buy again.

I did take such steps... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900367)

"If you don't want to be tracked, you need to take steps to make it happen yourself." - by nmb3000 (741169) on Friday May 02, 2014 @11:51AM (#46899859) Homepage

By programming this application: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> * "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

** "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

*** "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Re:Yahoo, kill yourself! (1)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | about 8 months ago | (#46900237)

Mayer needs new drapes for her conference room.

Code words for... (5, Insightful)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 8 months ago | (#46899635)

That is corporate speak for, "we decided we could make more money this way, so here is a bs reason for us to change, when we really just want more money."

Re:Code words for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899841)

That is corporate speak for, "we decided we could make more money this way, so here is a bs reason for us to change, when we really just want more money."

Ahem. Allow me to clarify what is really being said here.

Hey Morons,

We make a shitload of money off "personalizing" every thing you do and every click you make online.

If you don't like it, tough shit, because we're all doing it to you to make money, and don't want to give you a choice.

Fuck you Very Much,

- Every 'Free' Provider Ever

Enjoy your free services.

Re:Code words for... (1)

NewWorldDan (899800) | about 8 months ago | (#46899985)

It was a dumb idea anyway. Asking a web server to honor the "do not track" setting is like asking my dog to guard a plate of cookies. If you want this to work, you've got to control privacy from the client, somehow. Alternately, you need a legal remedy of some sort.

People still use Yahoo? (5, Funny)

genner (694963) | about 8 months ago | (#46899643)

Anyone savvy enough to care about this issue stop using Yahoo long ago anyway.

Re:People still use Yahoo? (5, Funny)

knotprawn (1935752) | about 8 months ago | (#46899699)

I know some people who still use Slashdot

Re:People still use Yahoo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900043)

I know some people who still use Slashdot

Cowards!

Re:People still use Yahoo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899765)

In other timely news, AOL just called - You've Got Mail! (tm)

Re:People still use Yahoo? (1)

Taelron (1046946) | about 8 months ago | (#46899851)

I wish I had mod points today... I was going to ask the same thing. Yahoo search stopped being relevant 6 or 7 years ago...

Re:People still use Yahoo? (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#46899945)

Anyone savvy enough to care about this issue stop using Yahoo long ago anyway.

You are equating "care about this issue" with "don't want to be tracked". That is not always true. I care very much about my privacy. But, in most cases, I want to be tracked. I get a more personalized experience, and I see fewer ads that are irrelevant to me. When I want privacy, I open a new private browser window. There is a tradeoff between privacy and personalization, and not every informed user wants, or should want, 100% privacy 100% of the time.

Surprise, anyone? (5, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 8 months ago | (#46899657)

Has it ever been a surprise to anyone that a measure that service-providers must voluntarily follow would not be followed? I mean, if by not following the measure you can generate more cash than by following it then why would you choose to do it, especially if no one else does it either? No, do-not-track was doomed all the way from the beginning.

Re:Surprise, anyone? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46900079)

There's no technological barrier to ignoring robots.txt, yet Google, Yahoo and the rest obey the standard meticulously. Does this mean that my own right to privacy is given less regard than a web server's?

Re:Surprise, anyone? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 8 months ago | (#46900127)

Not obeying robots.txt can land you into a never ending spiral of following links to the same content with different URLs

Re:Surprise, anyone? (1)

An Ominous Coward (13324) | about 8 months ago | (#46900335)

Commercial search engies must skate a fine line between fair use and copyright violation. There is at least some potential that ignoring robots.txt could land them in legal trouble.

At the moment, lacking contrary legislation, user-identifiying information that is transmitted to a server is considered property of that server owner. If there was legislation defining that information as property of the user, much like Canada (among others) defines metered electricity usage information as belonging not to the utilites but to the resident, then Do-Not-Track might have some teeth.

Even then, though, it's probably a lot harder to legally demonstrate a violation of that setting than showing a search engine has cached a page it wasn't given permission to cache.

Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899675)

What an absurd setting.

Simple enough to fix (5, Interesting)

JudgeFurious (455868) | about 8 months ago | (#46899687)

Yahoo stops using "Do-Not-Track" and in response people who care about it implement "Do-Not-Yahoo". These things tend to work themselves out over time.

Re:Simple enough to fix (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899739)

Yahoo stops using "Do-Not-Track" and in response people who care about it implement "Do-Not-Yahoo". These things tend to work themselves out over time.

The same people also need to implement "Do-Not-Google" for the same reason.

I have a solution... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899689)

I'm just not gonna visit yahoo.com. Track me now bitches!

I am willing to sacrifice. (2)

Payden K. Pringle (3483599) | about 8 months ago | (#46899713)

I am fine with sacrificing user friendliness for my privacy. Do not track me or I won't use your services. I have two yahoo emails which incidentally are used as account/spam dumps. I won't even use them for that if this is how Yahoo has chosen to do things.

Re:I am willing to sacrifice. (1)

jmd (14060) | about 8 months ago | (#46899915)

Funny..my Yahoo account is a spam dump too.

I find it comical that when I empty my spam folder an advertisement pops up in the window. Sad

My Standard (5, Interesting)

Banichi (1255242) | about 8 months ago | (#46899721)

>'we have yet to see a single standard emerge that is effective, easy to use and has been adopted by the broader tech industry.'

Here is my 'standard'; NoScript and AdBlock Plus.

Re:My Standard (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 8 months ago | (#46899873)

Ghostery does it much better with less overkill that noscript tends to be guilty of.

Ghostery = 'Souled-Out' + INFERIOR (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900189)

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> * "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

** "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

*** "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Re:My Standard (2, Informative)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 8 months ago | (#46899913)

You also probably want Better privacy too. It gets rid of supercookies.

Hopefully some more ideas will come out of this thread.

The WWW is dead. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899737)

First, they want to provide a personalized web-browsing experience, which isn't possible using do-not-track.

But the user clearly does not want a personalised web-browsing experience.

Ghostery, Secret Agent, CS Lite and NoScript are essential today, and nobody should EVER go online without those, or some equivalent. Let them personalise that.

The Web has been hijacked and is now fundamentally broken. It is being transformed into a locked-in content delivery platform, something like cable TV with a camera that records your every movement. It needs to be handled with gloves and goggles, like you would when accessing a chemical weapons research facility.

We'll need to develop another Internet, this one has been taken over by marketroids and is beyond saving.

Re:The WWW is dead. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899807)

First, they want to provide a personalized web-browsing experience, which isn't possible using do-not-track.

But the user clearly does not want a personalised web-browsing experience.

Ghostery, Secret Agent, CS Lite and NoScript are essential today, and nobody should EVER go online without those, or some equivalent. Let them personalise that.

The Web has been hijacked and is now fundamentally broken. It is being transformed into a locked-in content delivery platform, something like cable TV with a camera that records your every movement. It needs to be handled with gloves and goggles, like you would when accessing a chemical weapons research facility.

We'll need to develop another Internet, this one has been taken over by marketroids and is beyond saving.

Wasn't Ghostery bought by a marketing firm?

Re:The WWW is dead. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899951)

The Web has been hijacked and is now fundamentally broken.

We'll need to develop another Internet, this one has been taken over by marketroids and is beyond saving.

And you've just made the same rookie mistake as many, many before you.

Repeat after me: The web is not the internet. The web is not the internet. The web is not the internet.

The web is a marketing-infested public urban shithole scarring the landscape of the internet, but it's not the internet itself. There are 65535 more ports (ok, only 65534 if you count 8080 as a valid alternate for a public-facing site) for services to talk on. There are a near-infinite number of possible protocols, services, and things to do. Just because the vast majority of clueless plebes have decided to colonize one service does not mean the end of the internet.

It would be trivial to set up a "dark web" that would work exactly the same way as the current one but uses an agreed-upon alternate port. All the "cool kids" would be doing it within a few nanoseconds, and you'd probably have a year or two of peace before the marketing twats took over. Then you just move back to good-ol' port 80 and repeat.

When you want to shake the marketer-assholes for a longer period of time, you just change the protocol. It'll take them years to figure out how to fuck up Not-HTTP-But-It-Does-The-Same-Thing-And-Uses-Lua-Scripting-Instead-Of-Javascript. And when that gets taken over, or before then if you're smart, you'll create Not-HTTP-But-It-Does-The-Same-Thing-And-Uses-Brainfuck-Instead-Of-Lua. The "sheep" will follow, and the marketers will have to change their shit up again. This will cost them money and time. And eventually, they'll give up because, hell, what's after BrainfuckScript? Do they really want to find out?

CAPTCHA: quagmire. Because catching marketer-asshats in a quagmire is an art form us techies should be proud of. Also: "giggity".

Re:The WWW is dead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900217)

With almost all consumer ISPs blocking all ports except the few needed for basic service (web, email, ssh) you're going to have a very difficult time creating another internet on the existing world wide web. Even self hosting a web site is extremely difficult on certain ISPs. Once the ISP notices they block that port (if you found one that wasn't blocked) and then you need to switch to another unblocked one. Many filtering packages automatically filters home IPs so people can't even view your site as it's automatically blocked as spam.

until IE 10 broke it (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about 8 months ago | (#46900101)

> But the user clearly does not want a personalised web-browsing experience.

Until MSIE started lying about the user's preferences. The standard specifies what should be sent if the user has not expressed a preference. IE 10 lies and says the user requested a uncustomized version when they didn't. That makes the whole thing useless when browsers lie about what preferences the user expressed.

Re:until IE 10 broke it (0)

ChatHuant (801522) | about 8 months ago | (#46900319)

Your post is just another case of rabid anti-Microsoftism leading to reverse logic. The standard you mention has been written by Google and their pet browser company, Mozilla, so of course it says the default preference should be to allow ads. That's deeply wrong and anti-consumer (but pro-ad companies).

There has been a lot of discussion on Slashdot and everywhere else about opt-in versus opt-out - and the consensus is that opt-in is the correct choice in pretty much all cases. By default, users should always be opted out of things that infringe their privacy. Exactly the same here: only if they specifically opt in should they be tracked. Well, IE does this correctly. Not knowing about do not track (or not being technically savvy enough to disable it) IS NOT AN OPT IN, and people who do want to be a product can disable the do-not-track flag.

Of course, Yahoo and Google profit from the vast number of users who don't know about the intricacies of the do not track standards and options. The fact remains that those users did not specifically opt in, and their privacy is abused. The standard is broken (I believe intentionally), so don't try to make it sound like it's somehow Microsoft's fault.

Re:until IE 10 broke it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900339)

That's not lieing anymore than telling the server that you've opted in when you haven't. The problem here isn't the setting it's that there's nobody prosecuting those psychopathic maggots for wiretapping without consent. The advertisers keep adding more and more spyware to deal with the fact that people are opting out and then they wonder why it is that people are blocking their stuff.

Ghostery = INFERIOR + 'Souled-Out' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900141)

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> * "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

** "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

*** "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Re:The WWW is dead. (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 8 months ago | (#46900167)

First, they want to provide a personalized web-browsing experience, which isn't possible using do-not-track.

But the user clearly does not want a personalised web-browsing experience.

Nobody can give me a "personalized" experience unless they can somehow read my mind.

Do I want to constantly see ads for XYZ just because I once searched for XYZ or once visited the XYZ website? Fuck You Yahoo, Google and anyone else talking about a "personalized web-browsing experience"

Re:The WWW is dead. (3, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about 8 months ago | (#46900325)

But the user clearly does not want a personalised web-browsing experience.

The geek may not want the personalized browsing experience. But the geek doesn't speak for everyone.

The Web has been hijacked and is now fundamentally broken. It is being transformed into a locked-in content delivery platform, something like cable TV

What did you expect to happen when hundred of millions of people with no preconceptions of what the web and the Internet "should be" began purchasing broadband services? You can't even assume anymore that a user is accessing the web through a general purpose computer and browser ---

and not an HDTV, WiFi Internet radio, e-book Reader, video game console, smartphone, tablet or some other device.

We'll need to develop another Internet, this one has been taken over by marketroids and is beyond saving.

Go for it.

But you are building nothing but an echo chamber, a walled garden for the geek.

Nothing but a bubble --- and bubbles burst,

Privacy only works when it's in your own hands (4, Insightful)

gsslay (807818) | about 8 months ago | (#46899747)

The problem with "do not track" is that it was entirely up to the website to honour the browsing session. Most don't. And the ones that you'd reallywant to not have track you are the ones that really ignore it. It's therefore useless.

It's like a system of street privacy that relies on people being trusted to close their eyes when you walk by. Just because you ask them nicely. People will look, and you can't stop them.

If you want privacy you have to be the one in control of what is being revealed. You can't rely on others to keep your privacy for you.

Re:Privacy only works when it's in your own hands (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 8 months ago | (#46899925)

Indeed, I always thought "do not track" was a silly feature. I can ask the website to not track me, but how can I ever know what actually happens behind the scenes. If we really want such feature, the browser must somehow make me impossible to track.

Re:Privacy only works when it's in your own hands (1)

Sobrique (543255) | about 8 months ago | (#46900057)

Which in turn, is something that's extremely difficult - especially for a non technical user. You can probably approximate it with TOR, but that has it's own price.

Re: Privacy only works when it's in your own hands (1)

BeNude (28969) | about 8 months ago | (#46899931)

Ghostery FTW.

Re:Privacy only works when it's in your own hands (1)

wile_e8 (958263) | about 8 months ago | (#46900019)

This is why I've never bothered with do-not-track settings. Not only is it wholly unenforceable, but it seems like a giant "Look at me!" sign. Given that the vast majority of people don't even know do-not-track exists and never change the default settings on any program, surfing with the do-not-track flag on seemed like a great way to tell the people I really don't want tracking me that I'm technically literate enough that they should pay closer attention to me.

Re:Privacy only works when it's in your own hands (1)

Ghostworks (991012) | about 8 months ago | (#46900041)

Exactly. It was always a pretty bad idea. In fact, it reminds me a great deal of the RFC 3514 "evil bit" [wikipedia.org]

Do-Not-Track is basically a "Don't be evil" bit. It makes a plea on behalf of the end user and the end user hopes some distant system honors it. Any time you implement some version of the evil bit, you should expect that it's not going to work.

(Then again, there are a lot of tech features in use now -- such as a PDF owner_pass edit lock, or phone service Caller ID blocking -- which are also based on "please keep private" bit, and those are effective for 98% of the people out there who are just to lazy to get around them. So maybe there's something to be said for an evil bit after all.)

Re:Privacy only works when it's in your own hands (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900117)

Who said anything about _relying_ on it, the idea that yahoo wouldn't even keep with THEIR precedent of good behavior is the news here.

The idea is you can hold the BIG companies accountable for their tracking behavior, that it's advertising their policy priorities of trust.
Not whether it works or doesn't on every website on the internet.

This is like a big neon sign that says from now on, expect our shitty company that used to value privacy to track the crap out of you.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899753)

Their excuse for not following it is 'no one follows it'?

Two reasons (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899755)

There are two reasons for this: First, we aren't making as much money by honoring the settings. Second, WE AREN'T MAKING AS MUCH MONEY BY HONORING THE SETTINGS.

beta (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899785)

Quit throwing me to the beta site.

Re:beta (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | about 8 months ago | (#46899969)

Slashdot Stops Honoring 'No Beta' Settings.

There's a headline for ya..

What if I don't want a personalized experience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899793)

What's the industry-standard code for not wanting a personalized web-browsing experience?

"Visit a service that does honor 'do-not-track', unlike Yahoo"

They still exist? (1)

Sir Holo (531007) | about 8 months ago | (#46899819)

I "opted out" about 10 seconds after seeing that message on a Yahoo site.

The thing is, I strenuously avoid Yahoo. After the latest Firefox update, though, typing a search in the address field doesn't go to my preferred (in settings) search engine, but instead to Yahoo.

Yahoo search results are terrible, but most of the screen is filled with jumping icons a million other things I was not searching for.

Re:They still exist? (2)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about 8 months ago | (#46899987)

You probably want to use "duckduckgo" instead of google as your default search provider.

Google tracks a lot of information about you- even when you are anonymous. Last I heard it was 57 different things. I also keep googleleadservices and googleanalytics disabled in noscript.

Re:They still exist? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 8 months ago | (#46900121)

Startpage is cool too.

Re:They still exist? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46900125)

You probably want to use "duckduckgo" instead of google as your default search provider.

I would love to promote duckduckgo, but in reality the results that site brings up are seldom relevant, and normally suck.

I've recently switched to using Startpage for searches, as it protects my "anonymity" and pulls relevant search results, since it uses Google search on the back end.

Re:They still exist? (1)

Jbcarpen (883850) | about 8 months ago | (#46900047)

After the latest Firefox update, though, typing a search in the address field doesn't go to my preferred (in settings) search engine, but instead to Yahoo.

Firefox stores data about which search engine to use in a set of XML files. If something else gains access to those files, it can edit them to keep the name and icon of, e.g. google, but send the actual search to goatse (or wherever). If you delete the files, then the "restore defaults" button on the "manage search engines" panel will enable, and restore the originals.

Do not honor Yahoo (1)

briancox2 (2417470) | about 8 months ago | (#46899833)

Fortunately, there is little or no loss to the modern day internet user experience by ignoring Yahoo completely, either.

It's a trap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899881)

The techie response is to look at "do not track". Remark that, "It's a trap!", and install ghostery and no script.

Adding insult to injury (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899883)

Way to go, Yahoo! Not only are you screwing people up but, in addition, you are treating them as idiots. So you need to do that to deliver a personalized experience, right? What if I don't want a personalized experience? Or if I want to personalize it myself?

Why don't you just tell the truth, to wit, that you are doing this because you want to make more money? You would still screw up people but, at least, you would not piss them off by treating them like retards.

You guys sure live up to the company name.

Who's internet is it anyway? (0)

jmd (14060) | about 8 months ago | (#46899899)

Internet connectivity is about ease of accessing information. Google, Yahoo, JStor etc are about monetizing the access to that information.

See: Arron Swartz

Sigh: personalized web-browsing experience (3, Interesting)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 8 months ago | (#46899911)

First, they want to provide a personalized web-browsing experience, which isn't possible using do-not-track.

This is one of the phrases and behaviors that annoy me the most about various sites, especially search sites. I search for both personal and work related things, don't want searches tailored to anything other than the specific thing for which I'm searching at that time. I generally don't care what I searched for 24h ago (looking at you Google side-bar).

In a related rant, I can't stand the Google side-bar, Instant and Suggestions and make every attempt to disable and or strip them out (using Proxomitron) though now that Google has switched to HTTPS, that makes things more difficult for me - sigh.

Dear Providers, Don't "help" me unless I ask for it.

Re:Sigh: personalized web-browsing experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900327)

run ssl on your proxy with a self signed root cert you use on your PCs. it is pretty easy to bust SSL when you are in the middle and control the end client.

If this is real... (2)

HybridST (894157) | about 8 months ago | (#46899921)

IIRC yahoo is worth less than nothing at the moment. Re: www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-17/is-yahoo-s-business-worth-less-than-nothing

Why would I listen to a company with such outstanding performance?

Yahoo? (1)

Threni (635302) | about 8 months ago | (#46899933)

I can't imagine why I would ever go near a Yahoo site. Yahoo Answers? Seriously? Didn't Stack Exchange demolish that nonsense? Yahoo email? With the `win tickets to the World Cup` spammy sigfiles a good 8 months after the World Cup finished? What do they offer than other companies don't offer, better, and without the lack of respect?

Re:Yahoo? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 8 months ago | (#46900091)

What do they offer than other companies don't offer, better, and without the lack of respect?

Yahoo Groups?

Re:Yahoo? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46900151)

I can't imagine why I would ever go near a Yahoo site. Yahoo Answers? Seriously? Didn't Stack Exchange demolish that nonsense?

Hey, now - Yahoo Answers is still a great place to get terrible advice from trolls. Like when I was looking for a humane way to put down my gecko, and the top rated response was to put him in the freezer.

But wait Soulkill, you WANT the bullies stopped (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899939)

You want bullies stopped...

http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/04/16/0243257/student-records-kids-who-bully-him-then-gets-threatened-with-wiretapping-charge

But you don't want any of YOUR information about going to Buzzfeed tracks. I see.

How's that hero of the Soviet Union working for you? Snowden. You still mad at him for have the NSA getting a copy the info Verizon, Yahoo, Mastercard, Google and and Samsung have on your pizza order?

You can't have it both ways. Well they want to on Fox News. but here in science land, you can't have it both ways.

You are a hypocrite.

Yahoo going downhill fast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46899947)

They took away a long list of popular features from yahoo mail, yahoo answers, flickr, etc, and put a new unuseable interface on top of everything that eats up bandwidth and memory like crazy. They ignored hundreds of thousands of complaints. And now you need a verified cell number to sign up, so they've slammed the door on any new users. And for what? What is the point of ruining websites that people enjoy? If your income is from advertising wouldn't you want more people looking at your website? Not less? The whole thing is wacky.

Re:Yahoo going downhill fast. (1)

ledow (319597) | about 8 months ago | (#46900085)

I've always said that the time to stop using a company is when they do things that aren't in your interests - or indeed the interests of any logic.

Companies that "rebrand".
Companies that give poor customer service.
Companies that gobble-up and retire old, famous brands.
Companies that force you to move to their "new" interface / app / whatever (take note, Slashdot!)

These things achieve nothing that a customer would want them to achieve and actually hint at lots of poor, cyclical management decisions in order to justify someone's job (Let's outsource! Let's bring in-house! Let's outsource!)

I stopped using Hotmail when they forced a new interface on me that was worse and never got fixed (and I was a paying customer back-in-the-day).

I stopped using Geocities when I had to convert it to a Yahoo Account.

I stopped using a Yahoo account (entirely separate to the above) when they started to hinder me getting to my email.

I've stayed on GMail because I learned my lesson and no longer rely on any web interface to stay static. You piss about, I'll use IMAP into my favourite webmail / browser. Done.

With free services, brand loyalty is lost incredibly quickly. When MySpace *went out of fashion* everyone jumped on alternatives.

Let's get this straight - you want me to view adverts? Make it as painless as possible and put something I WANT TO USE behind the adverts. And, you know what? I will.

The single standard is: (4, Informative)

drolli (522659) | about 8 months ago | (#46899979)

Noscript, only per session cookies, and surfing trough a proxy.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900015)

We stopped tracking Yahoo a long time ago.

Do not track was flawed from the start (1)

Sobrique (543255) | about 8 months ago | (#46900021)

I can't say I'm surprised. Do not track settings that are optional on the part of the sites you're visiting are simply never going to work - the ones that'd honour it are also the sites you wouldn't be particularly worried about in the first place. Targeted advertising and profiling is big business, and the big revenue stream for the 'free' content providers. It really comes as no surprise - pretty fundamentally you get what you pay for. If you're paying nothing in monetary terms, then you'll be paying in privacy instead.

No effective standard? (2)

zarmanto (884704) | about 8 months ago | (#46900037)

"However, we have yet to see a single standard emerge that is effective, easy to use and has been adopted by the broader tech industry.' It looks like this is another blow to privacy on the web."

I don't know about you, but I can think of one fairly effective and extremely easy to use "standard"... AdBlock.

I'll ask again (1)

koan (80826) | about 8 months ago | (#46900049)

Why does anyone use Yahoo? You can't get an email without giving up your cell number, their "answers" section is absurd, they really have nothing to offer IMO.
There are far better choices, it seems like a recently beheaded chicken, still running around on autonomic pilot.

Re:I'll ask again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900281)

Why does anyone use Yahoo?

People use Yahoo because they are stupid.

Do you have any more stupid questions ?

Adblock, Ghostery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900059)

Our best defence.

I do not care for their "enhanced experience".

AdBlock & Ghostery = 'Souled-Out' + Inferior (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900171)

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> * "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

** "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

*** "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Time for the legal system? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 8 months ago | (#46900075)

Maybe it's time for the legal system to get involved. If entities won't honor privacy, maybe we need the equivalent of the "Do Not Call" list for telephones implemented for the internet. Of course companies like Google and Yahoo will then just alter their service agreements to state that you do in fact agree to be tracked.

Honour? (1)

XB-70 (812342) | about 8 months ago | (#46900119)

Yahoo! has stopped honouring so much of its user experience that they are doomed to failure.

Yahoo! Groups is bloated with spam that can't be blocked by its admins.

Yahoo! Messenger is so fraught with bugs and bloatware that users are fleeing in droves.

The main Yahoo! website is dated and mindless.

Yahoo! Mail is an abomination of unusable kludges and missteps.

Lastly, who uses Yahoo! to search for anything anymore, anyway?

Put a wooden stake in it, this thing is dead.

Honesty is the best policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900155)

At least they're being honest about it.

If we had been honest about it, we would have screamed and shouted about what BS the "do not track" option was in the first place. It was never more than an pretend solution devised by marketers to allow them to go about their business without having to take flack from privacy advocates.

Instead we praised and demonized browser developers for defaulting (or not defaulting) do not track settings. Like it even meant something.

Who's really to blame here?

Yahoo will cease to exist soon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900185)

Yahoo is a mess.

It won't be around as a business much longer because Yahoo is
bleeding cash and that cannot continue.

IE 10 broke by DNT lying (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 8 months ago | (#46900211)

The DNT standard specifies what should be sent under three conditions:
a) The user expresses that they DO want customization
b) The user expresses that they do NOT want customization
c) The user doesn't express any preference

IE 10 lies and says b when the truth is c. That makes it impossible to know who actually chose DNT. The whole thing is useless now that it doesn't to indicate the user's stated preference.

FARK.com (1)

hduff (570443) | about 8 months ago | (#46900291)

Does Slashdot get all its news stories from FARK.com?

I read most of the current crop there first.

Get a clue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46900343)

We don't want your idea of a personalized web experience, and call it what it is, hard-sell advertising...

At the Risk of Summoning APK (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 8 months ago | (#46900373)

Welcome to my HOSTS file, Yahoo.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?