Andy Serwin writes:
Giving consumers choices regarding seeing advertisements on websites, while recognizing existing business models, has been a focus for many stakeholders in the privacy debate. Many groups and companies have worked to create a ‘Do Not Track’ feature that would give consumers the choice of not seeing advertisements, but in the newest version of its Internet browser, Internet Explorer 10, Microsoft has reversed that trend by changing a default setting and turning on its ‘Do Not Track’ tool. The browser’s default setting, set without consumer input, will now preclude consumers from seeing advertisements on the websites they visit for free. This undermines long-term prospects of the ‘Do Not Track’ system which was designed to allow successful Internet business models to continue.
Read more on The Lares Institute.
That doesn’t make much sense. It is still a viable business model to use ads, just refrain from tracking people. Simples
Andy Serwin should know better. “Many groups and companies have worked to create a ‘Do Not Track’ feature that would give consumers the choice of not seeing advertisements”!?? It’s bad enough when people characterize DNT as do not target, but to equate it to ad blocking is ridiculous.
>>By changing the default setting turning on its “Do Not Track” tool in Internet Explorer 10, Microsoft will precluded consumers from seeing advertisements on the websites they visit for free, all without consumer input.
The concern for “consumer input” is touching, but even if DNT were synonymous with ad-blocking, he’s pulling a fast one with the following assumptions:
– that anyone visiting a website is a “consumer” of whatever is advertised on a website;
– that simply visiting a website “for free” amounts to explicit consent to see ads;
– that disabling DNT in order to see ads is not a conscious act that constitutes “consumer input” but using a browser with default settings that allow ads is an explicitly affirmative “input.”