<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Technology Liberation Front - Latest Comments in Do Not Track Registry Likely to Include Exemptions</title><link>http://tlf.disqus.com/</link><description>The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:18:52 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Do Not Track Registry Likely to Include Exemptions</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/25/do-not-track-registry-likely-to-include-exemptions/#comment-1453952</link><description>"I think that asking the government to hold a master list of IPs and consumer names is a bad idea, or at least one that won’t do much to really protect consumers."&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I blogged about this  when the list was first introduced:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://infoadvocate.org/blog/2007/11/04/do-not-track-lists-and-registries/" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://infoadvocate.org/blog/2007/11/04/do-not-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">gr</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:18:52 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Do Not Track Registry Likely to Include Exemptions</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/25/do-not-track-registry-likely-to-include-exemptions/#comment-1453951</link><description>Jeff, sorry if my first paragraph made it sound like you endorsed the plan, which I now you don't.  I wanted to state that I empathize with your concerns and that I don't think the list is a good way to address those concerns.  So we agree on that front.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">cordblomquist</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:20:47 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Do Not Track Registry Likely to Include Exemptions</title><link>http://techliberation.com/2008/04/25/do-not-track-registry-likely-to-include-exemptions/#comment-1453950</link><description>The Center for Digital Democracy does not support a do-not-track list.  We want federal rules that give individuals control over their data--so it can't be readily used by advertisers or government.  The commercial surveillance system put in place tracks and analyzes our activities online. It's not a debate about people selling "duvet covers" via digital marketing.  It's preventing, if an individual desires, from having a system used by others that includes sensitive information about our lives (health concerns, political interests, etc).  At a time when a growing majority, especially young people, are living their lives online, do we want either Big Brother/Big Sister from Washington or Madison Ave. always peering over our (digital) shoulder?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jeff Chester</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:51:47 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>