Follow

Why do they reinvent DNT?

It's already there, it's available in all browsers… Just make it legally binding.

Instead they come up with a new spec, with a new header, with a new menu, with new nonsense.

globalprivacycontrol.org/

Just why?

@freddy Well, thinking about it a bit longer, it probably makes sense. It'll allow them to start all legal battles from scratch and not worry to much about a court case that might was fought for DNT and lost.

This way making it easier for everyone to achieve their goal of having a head that is legally binding. I still hope that they make it so that DNT is also legally binding…

@sheogorath

xkcd/standards

I don't think this will change anything.

@sheogorath

Because this would send a whole list of settings to sites, dnt would be just one of them

@wuwei According to their spec, it also just sends a header `Sec-GPC` with a value 1 to the website. Also exposing a boolean to the JS engine. That's exactly what DNT does as well.

globalprivacycontrol.github.io

@sheogorath
"A user agent MUST generate a Sec-GPC header field with a field-value that is exactly the numeric character "1" if the user's Global Privacy Control preference is set."

It's just a check if preferences are set. The specific preferences won't be defined in the specification

@wuwei uhm, I just read the spec with all the surrounding text (was previously quite focused on the technical part). If I got it right, it doesn't even go as far as DNT. DNT says clearly that a server MUST NOT perform third-party tracking. GPC says "Please show a popup so users can decide". "More banners, please! It's 2020 websites don't have enough banners and popups and overlays yet!"

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Sheogorath's Microblog

This is my personal microblog. It's filled with my fun, joy and silliness.