"The only reason DNT exists is to express a non-default option," Fielding wrote in a post defending the change. "That's all it does. It does not protect anyone's privacy unless the recipients believe it was set by a real human being, with a real preference for privacy over personalization."
Seems to me that it is better to default to privacy, and opt-in to personalization.
DNT breaks down if advertisers don't participate. As long as it's not a law, what are the chances they will respect DNT if it's opt-out rather than opt-in?
Comments
"The only reason DNT exists is to express a non-default option," Fielding wrote in a post defending the change. "That's all it does. It does not protect anyone's privacy unless the recipients believe it was set by a real human being, with a real preference for privacy over personalization."
Seems to me that it is better to default to privacy, and opt-in to personalization.
DNT breaks down if advertisers don't participate. As long as it's not a law, what are the chances they will respect DNT if it's opt-out rather than opt-in?