Review Request: GUI configuration for the 'Do Not Track' feature...

Dawit A adawit at
Sat Apr 16 00:53:32 BST 2011

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Thomas Lübking
<thomas.luebking at> wrote:
> Am 15.04.2011, 21:00 Uhr, schrieb Ingo Klöcker <kloecker at>:
>>> that's not a very wise default. if too many people will use it (*),
>>> the data miners will just ignore the standard, based on the rightful
>>> claim that most people didn't even explicitly say they don't want to
>>> be tracked.
>> Sorry, but this argumentation is ridiculous. Bad data miners will ignore
>> the standard no matter what.
> I wonder whether DNT makes any sense at all (or is just a giant fake) and it
> wouldn't be better to tell ppl. how to add sth like

That is like playing a chicken and mouse game. There are so many ways
to circumvent what you are doing above it is not even funny. Moreover,
nothing stops these sites from refusing to show you a site, if they
cannot set certain cookie that can be used for tracking. Yes, asking
the fox to guard the hen house is not much better, but at least it
would work more effectively than the arms race approach you stated

> to /etc/hosts (does anybody know who ships the _unam, __csv & __switchTo5x
> cookies?)
> Otherwise i guess a cookie filter by cookie name would be faaar more
> powerful than DNT or the domain based cookie.

And what prevents people from changing the cookie values to a point
where they are completely indistinguishable from any "benign" cookie,
if there is such a thing. IOW, at least the DNT feature, as absurd as
it sounds, is a much better solution than the very same approach you
advocate here. Look at the anti-virus business as an example. It is a
constant arms race.

Anyhow, if adding this feature means just few sites will leave you
along because they honor the header name, then personally I think it
is worth the minuscule effort it requires to implement it.

Dawit A.

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list