Am I the only one who thinks "Do-Not-Track" is a snake-oil-grade security and what this header reliably does is only adding a single more bit to uniquely identify the visitor?
Some marketters just have really weird ideas about what they should be allowed to do. Or even what i should be allowed to stop them doing.
Spam is obviously evil to most people, until they decide to spam for their particular product.
SEO has had some strongly negative effects on the www. I'm sort of thinking of starting a movement like "contrast revolution" or "viewable in any browser". My banners would be "zero SEO performed here".
I think most ad/marketing companies are perfectly willing to stop tracking people who specifically request not to be tracked -- provided there aren't too many people making that request. Witness the opt-out cookies (http://www.aboutads.info/choices/) which are a kludgey hack, but have been supported by the industry for ages and, as far as I know, work as described.
The issue is whether or not that DNT box is checked by default. As we all know, most people don't change default settings.
Some marketters just have really weird ideas about what they should be allowed to do. Or even what i should be allowed to stop them doing.
Spam is obviously evil to most people, until they decide to spam for their particular product.
SEO has had some strongly negative effects on the www. I'm sort of thinking of starting a movement like "contrast revolution" or "viewable in any browser". My banners would be "zero SEO performed here".