[OpieCunningham]

no-one has to support it

Which is why there should be a law.

It's actually outrageous. There's a law to prohibit unsolicited telephone calls - effectively a law to prohibit annoying people. But none for prohibiting companies from invading privacy by tracking online activity without explicit permission? Insane.

I have no tears for ad networks. They need to find a new business model or be fined into bankruptcy.

(That's my conclusion, BTW. The Mozilla stuff was simply a response to your Mozilla comments. I'm sure there are a lot of nice people at Mozilla. And Google. Irrelevant.)

[Mozilla] exists to make the web a better place.

If that were true, Mozilla would be lobbying for a law.

[pbiggar]

> Which is why there should be a law. > It's actually outrageous. There's a law to prohibit unsolicited telephone calls. But none for prohibiting companies from invading privacy by tracking online activity without explicit permission? Insane.

I think the difference is that you choose which sites to go to. If you dont go to them, you dont get ads, and you're not tracked. I would consider it more like CC TV, or Safeway cards.

> I have no tears for ad networks. They need to find a new business model or be fined into bankruptcy.

While there has been a lot of scumbaggery by some large advertising networks, I think there is a place for ads. Certainly given I read a lot of content for "free" which is supported by ads.

> > [Mozilla] exists to make the web a better place. > If that were true, Mozilla would be lobbying for a law.

Try this: assume mozilla _is_ trying to make the web a better place, and now consider why they aren't lobbying for a law.

What I learned at Mozilla is that there are people there who have true vision about the future of the open web, tempered by a nuanced and pragmatic approach to ensuring it. I can't speak for them, but my impression is that destroying the ad industry is bad for the internet as a whole, and so not desirable.

[OpieCunningham]

I think the difference is that you choose which sites to go to.

That's not a difference. You choose to own a phone. You choose to leave your phone on the hook. If you don't own a phone, if you leave your phone off the hook, you won't get unsolicited calls. Further, you don't get to know which sites have ads before you go to them. And finally, a Safeway card doesn't know you walked into a 7-Eleven, or a bookstore, or attended a concert.

I think there is a place for ads.

No argument. Ad networks simply need to find a business model that doesn't depend on breaking a DNT law. It's their responsibility to do so if they elect to sell ads. Privacy should not be involuntarily sacrificed in order to support their business model.

assume mozilla _is_ trying to make the web a better place, and now consider why they aren't lobbying for a law.

OK. Because they lack sufficient intelligence. I doubt that is the case, so I'll revert to my view that Mozilla is not singularly focused on "what's best for the web".

Simply because Mozilla, or you, or I are unable to create a business model for ad networks that is not dependent on invasion of privacy, and simply because ad networks are disinclined to change their existing business model, does not mean a DNT law destroys ads. It is not Mozilla, or mine, or your responsibility to save ad networks that stubbornly refuse or are incapable of identifying a non-invasive business model. But it is Mozilla (the "what's best for the web" Mozilla, anyway) and mine and your responsibilities to oppose businesses and business models that invade privacy.

[pbiggar]

> You choose to leave your phone on the hook.

This would be equivalent if the act of having a browser meant that the advertisers could interrupt you at any time your browser is open. That is not the case. Far from it.

> I'll revert to my view that Mozilla is not singularly focused on "what's best for the web".

You've ignored many other possibilities, such as the one I suggested in my last post. What evidence do you have to support your view?

[OpieCunningham]

This would be equivalent if the act of having a browser meant that the advertisers could interrupt you at any time your browser is open.

Exactly my point. There's a law that prohibits the relatively minor annoyance of being interrupted. But there is no law that prohibits the rather serious issue of privacy invasion.

If the law was necessary in the first case, where you could simply leave your phone off the hook to completely avoid being interrupted, there's no rational justification that the law is not also necessary in the second case, where, as you stated, you could (somehow!) pre-filter all your website usage to avoid having your privacy invaded.

(I'm done with the "is Mozilla run by Jesus" discussion - you have your opinion based on your view and I have a different opinion based on my view - I suspect neither will convince the other based on repetition of views.)