[kevincox]

I don't think it does. One possible explanation is that they don't want the "Edge Effect". If the header is set by everyone than people will just ignore it. Since Edge started setting it for everyone the header is basically useless already.

It would also provide an interesting way to identify incognito users which chrome has been trying to prevent websites from doing it. Of course it won't be perfect, but probably more than 99% of DNT headers would be incognito if they did this because I would bet that very few people enable it manually.

[pacala]

If everyone has a lock on their door, then people will just ignore it and break into the house anyways.

[gizmo385]

It takes active effort to break into a house. It takes zero effort to ignore a header. It's more akin to everyone having a sign on their yard that says "Please don't break into this house."

[pacala]

Great point. There are 'No Soliciting' signs and laws.

https://banneradviser.com/no-soliciting-signs

> In a nutshell, no, door to door solicitation isn’t illegal. But if you have a no soliciting sign posted on your property, and the salesperson is refusing to vacate the property, they can be assessed trespassing fines and possible legal charges.

[mehrdadn]

> But if you have a no soliciting sign posted on your property, and the salesperson is refusing to vacate the property, they can be assessed trespassing fines and possible legal charges.

How is this different from when you don't have the sign? Do they get to refuse vacating the property without trespassing in that case?

[pacala]

It's not a black/white situation. It's a 'argue in front of a judge' situation.

With sign: Unassailable evidence that tresspassers are informed they are not welcome.

Without sign. Owner word vs tresspasser word.

The latter is a weaker stance.

[amenod]

> If everyone has a "Under video surveillance" sticker on their door...

Ftfy.