Ed Bott:
When Microsoft shipped its Release Preview of Windows 8 in June, it announced that the default browser, Internet Explorer 10, would have the Do Not Track (DNT) signal enabled by default. That action unleashed a heated debate in the Tracking Protection Working Group of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
To the advertising and analytics companies that make up the tracking industry, this issue is an existential one. If the default browser in the world’s most popular operating system is set to disallow tracking, the effect would be profoundly disruptive to companies that live and die by their ability to follow users around the web.
Kudos to Microsoft for doing the right thing.
I think this is more a move to screw with Googles primary source of revenue. Let’s not forget google owns companies like Double-click, etc.
Isn’t DNT based entirely on the honor system? This leads me to conclude the following:
For advertisers and analytics companies this is, as you say, an existential issue. Their continued existence depends on being able to track people. If IE 10 marks everybody as DNT by default, these companies will be more likely to ignore the DNT designation in the future than if IE 10 ships with DNT turned off by default. Pretty soon it could be a majority of the web-using population who are set as DNT (well, maybe not, considering the continued popularity of IE 6).
Conversely, if it is only a small percentage of people who manually opt-in to DNT, advertisers and analysers would be more likely to do the honorable thing and comply with those users conscious request not to be tracked.
So perhaps Microsoft is not doing us a favor by changing the default setting. Maybe doing so makes the DNT designation mean a lot less than it currently does, because then the designation won’t be a conscious decision for all users.
I don’t know how things will actually play out, but that’s my armchair psychology for today.
I’ll give them kudos when DNT ships enabled on the final release version. Until then, as with all Microsoft product claims, I’m not putting any faith in it.
Why does the W3C group want to accommodate advertisers? I’ll expose my naiveté here and say that I thought they might want to default to best practices for user privacy and protection.
I believe them: Google has made too many enemies for themselves. The deal is that MS has a powerful motivation to weaken Google. Android took away Windows Phone’s natural market: OEMs who are shopping for a smartphone OS. Android took that opportunity away from MS, so naturally they are pissed.
Now, just about any power-holder in computers dislikes Google for some reason…