-
Website
http://techliberation.com/ -
Original page
http://techliberation.com/2008/04/25/do-not-track-registry-likely-to-include-exemptions/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
MikeRT
195 comments · 6 points
-
eee_eff
803 comments · 8 points
-
mwendy
97 comments · 4 points
-
Ryan Radia
184 comments · 5 points
-
Richard Bennett
612 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Google on “Open”: Myopic Self-Focus
2 days ago · 7 comments
-
The Deontological Case Against Net Neutrality Regs
4 days ago · 16 comments
-
Facebook Privacy Controls Change & EPIC’s FTC Complaint
1 week ago · 10 comments
-
Cutting the Video Cord: “Apple TV” 2.0 + Disney & CBS
3 days ago · 3 comments
-
Google’s “Open” Philosophy and the Conspicuous Lack of Open-Source Search
1 day ago · 1 comment
-
Google on “Open”: Myopic Self-Focus
What specifically do you and CDD want to see done on the federal level? The do-not-track list seems flawed, but is there a better solution that can be implemented via federal law?
The Do-Not-Track list is unfortunately named, as people are led to believe what you just did: that it tracks consumers. It works more like an offender database: it tracks the advertisers, and then the consumer can just download the list and make the choice to protect themselves. So it is quite what you want to be: an easy way for industry to allow consumers to opt-out.
I blogged about this when the list was first introduced:
http://infoadvocate.org/blog/2007/11/04/do-not-...
On your cookie idea, if we create a special kind of cookie that anti-spyware doesn't delete, then malware and trackers will start using it.