Running in my browser.
>> On the other hand demanding of publishers to not track you while you're on their property is unreasonable.
I'm not on their property. I'm fairly happy for them to record what they can see at their end in terms of what pages I go to, but I find it very unreasonable to demand that I run whatever code the website operator asks me to run, to turn my computer into a machine that reports anything/everything about my site interaction to anyone the site owner feels like, and all on the basis of an implied social contract of some form.
The only thing I find reasonable is for users to be warned that they are tracked, precisely for enabling them to move to alternatives that better respect their wishes.
His website is running in your browser by your choice, not his ;-)
>> His website is running in your browser by your choice, not his ;-)
Excellent, now how do I know ahead of time, or without digging through the source, which sites are going to try and run this stuff?
--edit-- Also, and here's the rub - again I just requested some data from his server, and it provided it to me. I made no promise to render or run it in the way he wants. If he has requirements about that sort of thing then maybe he needs to specify them.
Ideally, the browser would start by making an OPTIONS request in which the server would reply with something like "yes, I'll track this user in spite of their preferences" (even with a link to their privacy policy) and then the browser could block the view with a warning, just like how Chrome and Firefox are giving warnings for insecure connections, giving users the option to add exceptions or to go somewhere else.
This would be fair to both users and publishers.
As I implied in my other comment, this is a false dichotomy; by using browser extensions, I can and do control my browsing experience to benefit from sites that track while preventing them from tracking.
The very concept that I should subject myself to the whims of web sites is completely counter to the history and culture of the net.
Usually when someone says as simple as that, it clearly is not that simple.
I use Ad-Block Plus and Ghostery for all my web browsing, and have both Ad-Block Plus set to block _all_ ads and Ghostery set to block _all_ tracking scripts.
These extensions do not make 'polite requests'; they directly control the browsing experience to my benefit.
I (and my extensions) control my browsing experience, not you.
(You can argue that this is unfair, but in the long run I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money.)
> I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money
Sites will make less money without use of cookies, images, and support of encoding sessions into URIs. You ARE welcome to use the web without these things, but it is going to mean you are not a customer of many entities, because your kind are vanishingly small in number.
You might be interested in the Firefox section of http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=24722, if your serious about your privacy and security.
Secondly, in my ordinary web browsing, I'm not trying to avoid all tracking whatsoever - I'm much more interested in blocking the 99.9% low-hanging fruit of commercial 3rd-party tracking. If I really was paranoid / needed to prevent tracking completely, I'd use a much more sophisticated setup.
Given that context, the fact that some people may be trying to embed image web bugs on a bunch of pages isn't nearly as important or interesting; AFAIK most commercial 3rd-party trackers are javascript-based these days. Same applies for straight cookies - blocking the 3rd-party javascript usually prevents these begin set in the first place.
> since you seem to want the web to return to byzantine times? > without use of cookies, images, and support of encoding sessions into URIs
I'm not advocating for that at all - there is a continuum between only viewing raw HTML and running every bit of 3rd-party javascript someone decided to throw into the page.
My comment was bascially arguing that there _is_ a continuum, and that it is possible to block the vast majority of 3rd-party trackers, _without_ having to turn of JS completely, do anything really paranoid.
My whole comment, essentially, was about _avoiding_ turning off JS etc., and still maintaining a level of control over my browsing experience. I actually develop web applications for a living, so it would be a bit silly of me to say that we shouldn't have sessions support!
> > I believe the outcome will be a better business model for sites to make money
What I was referring to here, is that if ads and 3rd-party tracking are blocked, then sites will have to create new revenue streams to operate with - and if that means paying directly for good content, then I look forward to supporting that business model.
I think your annoyance is misplaced. I develop rails apps for a living, so I am aware of the importance of js, sessions etc. - I'm merely stating that I can have my cake (blocking 3rd-party trackers) and eat it (still use the next) too.
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2280451/Google-Paying-t...
See https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads#optout (I have opted out).
I am annoyed that they accept money to whitelist ads and am also annoyed that they allow whitelisting like this at all; however there is a considerable distance between having opt-out whitelisting, and what you're implying.
His website.
Seriously, people should be warned that they are tracked, the purpose for which they are tracked and what exactly is tracked. Google Search for example is giving warnings lately, that you have to manually dismiss (probably because of EU laws) and I view that as being progress.
On the other hand demanding of publishers to not track you while you're on their property is unreasonable. Of course, you can complain about it, you can stop using such services or websites and so on. Voting with your wallet (or eyeballs) still works, even on the web.
I also view the "Do Not Track" header as a good thing, because it's an automated way for publishers to respect your wishes, should they choose to do that. But customers must also understand that this header represents a kind request, nothing else and we shouldn't make it something else, as that's a slippery slope.