News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org by Nursie on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @10:48AM (#6134039)
>> I think OP meant that once you make a request to his server, his server is free to do what it wants with that request.

I don't think they did mean that -

"But you've politely requested that I don't track you. For starters this should only ever be a polite request, not a forced rejection of any tracking scripts. I have a right to track how people use my site."

"People get way too offended by analytics tracking when it's there for their benefit."

It looks to me like they're saying that if you go to their site you have to run their scripts regardless of your own wishes, and that you're 'under his roof' and will therefore do what he says.

>> You can't possibly believe that his storing access logs is wrong.

No, I don't, that would indeed be silly! I believe that it's rude to try to demand people run your code, and if you do demand it then we need to find a way for me to tell him up front that I'm not going to, so he can decide if he still wants to send me the page data.

Re:Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org by __david__ on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @03:21PM (#6136203)
I generally agree with you but I didn't read what he said that way. Just in the same sense that the browser has the right to avoid running javascript (or loading ads) that a server sends it, the server has a right to log requests the the client gives it (and certainly every server by default logs the IP, timestamp and request URL). I see it as 2 sides of the same coin.

And though there are many analytics products that rely on running javascript on the client, almost all have fallbacks to 0px images--all that is needed is to comb through the logs occasionally.

Re:Do Not Track is not respected on mozilla.org by Nursie on Wednesday July 31, 2013 @07:11PM (#6137444)
OK, I don't disagree with you but I will refer you to the stuff I was replying to -

"For starters this should only ever be a polite request, not a forced rejection of any tracking scripts. I have a right to track how people use my site."

"People get way too offended by analytics tracking when it's there for their benefit."

And the followup by the same OP -

"I'm going to keep an eye on you as I see fit whilst you are in my shop. Surely you can see that as fair?

You are an agent entering my property. This is what your computer does when you access my site."

It seems clear to me that they feel entitled to have their scripts run on my computer. I have no issue with them checking their logs to see what I requested and when. Scripts, cookies, 0px images, each of these are mine to block as I see fit because I own the client, not them.