Re:How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good
by endtwist on Sunday September 11, 2011 @09:34AM
(#2983760)
The DNT initiative always reminded me of the "Evil Bit" joke: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good
by gwern on Sunday September 11, 2011 @10:35AM
(#2983846)
Somewhat surprisingly, some 'evil bits' like the .xxx TLD, seem to be getting traction.
Re:How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good
by dsl on Sunday September 11, 2011 @03:14PM
(#2984522)
It is only gaining traction from people who want the bit explicitly turned off. People are lining up to pay $100 and change to prevent coca-cola.xxx and nike.xxx from being registered. Not a single person I've talked to in adult is seriously considering a move to .xxx
Re:How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good
by SteveJS on Sunday September 11, 2011 @08:51PM
(#2985389)
I had the same reaction. It seems like DNT is more notable for reducing interest and effort in actual solutions. However, the EFF (whose opinion on this I'd trust) appears to indicate DNT is complimentary with things like AdBlock and IE's TPL's:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/tracking-protection-li...
Re:How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good
by ez77 on Sunday September 11, 2011 @04:28PM
(#2984727)
When the IP standard was defined, was this bit purposely left undefined? Is this newer RFC really a joke, and nothing but a joke? How come the IETF allows just-kidding RFCs? I'm puzzled...
Re:How's Mozilla Doing with Do Not Track? Not So Good
by sbierwagen on Sunday September 11, 2011 @05:12PM
(#2984859)
Note the date. Typically people submit joke RFCs on April 1st.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC
Also, RFCs are not terribly heavyweight technical documents. They're essentially memos, not ISO standards. Any (demonstrably competent) person can submit a RFC, and if it becomes popular, then the idea enters the standards track, and new, better RFCs are issued based on it.