The worst part about the DNT header was the requirement for the tracking companies to regulate themselves. Initially, the header was opt-in, but with the introduction of IE10, Microsoft decided that the option was going to be opt-out. Once the the DNT header was gaining traction and a not-so-small percentage of people began sending the header, the companies had no reason to comply, and the initiative sorta fell out of favor.
For blocking tracking, the most effective tools are browser extensions made to block ads. Ghostery provides comparisons on an non-biased website between the methods of blocking tracking through browser modifications [1]. According to the site, the Do Not Track header actually has an effect with a difference of 18% in cookie size when the header is set. AdBlock Edge and disabling third-party cookies results in a 59% and 40% decrease in cookie size respectively. It seems that the easiest thing you can do to lessen your internet footprint would be to disable third-party cookies and enable the DNT header, and the majority of tracking can be eliminated through the use of a browser extension. (But with the recent revelations [2], using a browser extension may actually reduce your browsing experience if you don't have the RAM to spare.)
Wont you always be trackable by an heuristic approach?
I would expect that a fuzzy hash of your ip,location,language settings,resolution, browsertype, average mousespeed, your computers speed to draw a circle, calc a prime etc etc etc will always identify you.
So we ought to start considering whether those things should be permissible by default in browsers.
It used to be that sites could inspect the clipboard until we realised how bad for security that was. Perhaps mouse movement and/or timing information should be something that isn't allowed by default without granting the site additional permissions. Perhaps browsers could be set to stop sending many of the headers they currently send by default, or send approximations to reduce the uniqueness of the headers.
My opinion is that javascript should be opt-in. The idea that any junk website is allowed to execute code on your machine without asking or even the user being aware is a fundamental security flaw.
Ultimately then Javascript becomes useless, because 95% of clients will not have it enabled. This is why we have sandboxing, and very high browser bounties for any exploits that allow you to leave that sandbox. Is it perfect? Nope. But it's the best option to move forward safely in the web without going back in time 20 years.
Most of the web works fine, it does not break most sites the internet.
JS can be used to just do annoying crap, play sounds or videos, etc. I can choose to mute my entire browser or I can choose to not run JS on new sites until I approve of them. (This used to be more important before patches for js moving browser windows and the like)
While most JS wont break out of the browser in most cases, what you can do within the browser to determine where you have been, who you are, and (if you visit samy.pl) things like enumerating your local network or running a bitcoin miner with JS are possible.
> Most of the web works fine, it does not break most sites the internet.
While I agree with you in spirit, this doesn't seem to be true in practice. I also browse with JS turned off by default, and, in general, whenever I visit a new site, I often find it blank, or completely illegible. After allowing JavaScript for that site, I then often have to play a guessing game of what CDNs or other external resources I have to allow before anything will display. (For example, I was able to see weather on weather.com—hardly anyone's idea of a good Internet citizen, but the first one that springs to mind—simply by allowing JavaScript from their domain; but had to guess around quite a bit before I could get the settings icon to display.)
That is a really common idea here and a really arrogant one given how many SASS businesses wouldn't be possible without JS.
There were a time when the internet was about reading text, but that has long since passed. Without javascript you can't have a presentation overlayed with video (say of the presenter), you can't have real time anything, you can't comment without having to reload the page, etc. Look at how horrible the UX of HN is compared to reddit.
You would still be able to enable it if you think it's relevant and trust the website. But when I end up on a news website reading an article, I see no justification for having all these scripts from all these different untrusted sources executing in the background.
If plain HTML isn't good enough, it just means we need a better HTML.
> That is a really common idea here and a really arrogant one given how many SASS businesses wouldn't be possible without JS.
Why is it arrogant? Surely "my site won't work with your browser settings" is not inherently an argument that I have to change my browser settings!
I mean, you can say "by browsing with JavaScript off, you kill the rich web", but I can also say "by refusing to make available a plain-text version of your site, you kill the information web" (with whatever appropriate buzzwords substituted for my ungainly ones). Many of the same arguments here could, I think, have explained why Flash is absolutely necessary for the modern web—until Apple's weight showed that it isn't.
Opting in to javascript wouldn't make anyone any safer. You would literally have to manually inspect every line and re opt-in with every single request (since javascript can be dynamically generated per request) to even attempt to verify the safety of the code. Most people would simply be annoyed, and browser vendors would add opt-in by default as soon as possible, just to survive.
If you trust javascript that little, just turn it off entirely in your browser and let the rest of the web be. You're far, far more at risk from the browser itself, plugins and apps than from javascript.
>The idea that any junk website is allowed to execute code on your machine without asking or even the user being aware is a fundamental security flaw.
Two of the worst offenders are overly-specific user agents (a setting which should definitely be configurable) and list of plugins (which I see no reason for being available).
In Mozilla Firefox, you can create the setting general.useragent.override (it doesn’t exist by default) and set its value to “Firefox” to get a very generic user agent string that websites will still recognize as Firefox and not block as a bot.
Regarding plugins, the best solution I have found is to have none enabled. Firefox still sends them in the list when using click-to-play, so it is necessary to disable them completely.
As I said in my other comment, changing your user agent string affords you no privacy protection against those who care about knowing, and makes you more trackable.
Your browser (including the exact version) can be determined without looking at the user agent string (which is mostly a series of lies anyway). Changing it "for privacy" makes you easier to track.
As to the plugin list, you could make it non-enumerable, but then one could just probe for the X most common ones, like can be done for fonts.
I doubt it is possible to determine the exact version, or even the browser (though the accept headers might leak it), without JavaScript. Thus NoScript fixes that problem.
You are right that this gives more information to a determined person, but anyone who pushes fingerprinting to the point of detecting a user’s browser version and other characteristics through JavaScript will certainly be able to identify you uniquely anyway. In such a case, it doesn’t matter than this person has more or less information, since he can already identify you; and having a generic user agent makes people who only look at it know less about you.
It's possible to differentiate the major browsers and operating systems without javascript, and even the versions can be narrowed down without javascript even with user agent spoofing.
Actually the way DNT works is also its best attribute. I see more as an attempt that almost worked. It did sensibilize people and companies. Theres a want to not be tracked thats greater than it used to be.
Its not just a technical issue.
> The worst part about the DNT header was the requirement for the tracking companies to regulate themselves. Initially, the header was opt-in, but with the introduction of IE10, Microsoft decided that the option was going to be opt-out.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but being a former CTO of an adserving company, I feel qualified to at least voice my opinion: this was a brilliant move by Microsoft. The DNT header as it were, was a perfect middle-ground for advertising companies: people that cared enough were able to opt-out, and people that did not care would still be able to be tracked.
Google had the most to lose. I feel Microsoft made this decision in order to (accelerate the) kill of the DNT header, and thus hoping on more severe legislation.
I think you give them too much credit. I think Microsoft, having little to lose in the way of targeted advertising, simply wanted more people to use DNT to hurt or even just embarrass its competitors. I don't think they intended to torpedo the whole spec on purpose. (And, indeed, I don't see any severe legislation on the horizon)
Microsoft has torpedoes many specs in the past, intentionally. They are certainly in that business. There is no reason to doubt that an appearance of torpedoing a spec wasn't exactly that - its the simplest explanation.
There's definitely precedent for that behavior from Microsoft's side, obvious or not (a certain anti-trust case springs to mind). They have nothing to gain by being obvious about it, and everything to gain by being a whole lot more sneaky about it.
I'm not saying it's necessarily what happened with the DNT header, but they'd do well to avoid drawing too much attention to themselves in certain cases.
Well, no, because they actually want something like Do Not Track to succeed. The theory that they made it fail on purpose so that an even stronger version of the same idea will come about is definitely not the simplest explanation.
If we are goign to get something like Do Not Track, then it should have been drafted out of the public eye, had a nice short period for public comment and then recieved some sort of backing in law. Speculative implementations didn't really help.
I'm not too familiar with the laws surrounding things like 'do not call' lists and anti-spam measures, but some sort of system from that area of law could surely have been a part of DNT.
And the EU, rather than doing this, enacted their dumb 'cookie law' which, as far as I can tell, has just meant every UK website now has unnecessary cluttery popups telling you that they're using cookies.
I'm pretty sure a sizeable number of non-EU based sites added cookie popups as well.
Cookie popups were stupid - cookies aren't really an opt-in system. DNT should have been an opt-out system for off-site tracking. If Facebook tracks you through a like button or Google tracks you through an ad/analytics after you sent then a DNT header, they get into trouble.
Maybe the header size effect DNT could have been mitigated by not sending it to sites with the same origin as the current page (or another origin policy that the website specifies).
That was around before DNT (just). Given that the popups were required in any case and are site-specific acceptance, why bother with DNT? It was more work to implement for zero benefit. Admittedly that also applies to the popups, but those were less optional.
At the risk of stating the obvious, Do Not Call has not stopped phone scams and telemarketing and CAN-SPAM has not stopped actual spam. It's hard for me to get too excited about a Do Not Track solution that only really applies to the sort of companies that follow the rules in the first place.
Well, I'd say Do Not Call and CAN-SPAM are somewhat different in that it's not a user initiating the communication - for Do Not Track it's the user (via the browser) initiating communication.
> If we are goign to get something like Do Not Track, then it should have been drafted out of the public eye, had a nice short period for public comment and then recieved some sort of backing in law.
I'm confused by this—how would drafting the law / specification / whatever out of the public eye have helped the process?
I think doing it out of the public eye might have stopped premature use and implementations. Inconsistencies really had to be avoided, but without much of a concrete draft, implementations like Microsoft's sort of derailed the effort.
> I think doing it out of the public eye might have stopped premature use and implementations.
Sure, but so doing might carry its own risk—namely, no community investment once the proposal was released. A very consistent proposal by which no-one feels represented isn't necessarily an improvement!
It never made sense in the first place. It was an opt-in, voluntary restriction that destroys all of advertisers' supposed value with no legal consequences if they ignore it.
The only real solution is client-side, and we have that technology now: hosts-blocking, Ghostery, AdBlock, etc. If enough people cared, it could be enabled by default on new browser installs.
It was a weak idea from the start. If you trust advertising companies to do what they say, then there's already an opt-out tracking system: http://www.networkadvertising.org/choices/ The bad actors (particularly ones not based in the US) were going to ignore DNT anyway.
Now, granted, it's technically far inferior to a DNT header (it sets a cookie on each ad network domain) but as far as I can tell it works and has worked for years.
Windows still uses the hosts file in windows 8. I did a little looking around and it looks like Windows Defender automatically removes some hosts from the file.
Thanks for looking into it. I have Windows but don't use it a whole lot.
Strictly speaking DNS is a protocol and not an API. Applications aren't required to perform name lookups by using any particular software, it's just common to use what the OS supplies.
50 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 103 ms ] threadFor blocking tracking, the most effective tools are browser extensions made to block ads. Ghostery provides comparisons on an non-biased website between the methods of blocking tracking through browser modifications [1]. According to the site, the Do Not Track header actually has an effect with a difference of 18% in cookie size when the header is set. AdBlock Edge and disabling third-party cookies results in a 59% and 40% decrease in cookie size respectively. It seems that the easiest thing you can do to lessen your internet footprint would be to disable third-party cookies and enable the DNT header, and the majority of tracking can be eliminated through the use of a browser extension. (But with the recent revelations [2], using a browser extension may actually reduce your browsing experience if you don't have the RAM to spare.)
[1] http://www.areweprivateyet.com/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8802424
I would expect that a fuzzy hash of your ip,location,language settings,resolution, browsertype, average mousespeed, your computers speed to draw a circle, calc a prime etc etc etc will always identify you.
https://amiunique.org/
It used to be that sites could inspect the clipboard until we realised how bad for security that was. Perhaps mouse movement and/or timing information should be something that isn't allowed by default without granting the site additional permissions. Perhaps browsers could be set to stop sending many of the headers they currently send by default, or send approximations to reduce the uniqueness of the headers.
Most of the web works fine, it does not break most sites the internet.
JS can be used to just do annoying crap, play sounds or videos, etc. I can choose to mute my entire browser or I can choose to not run JS on new sites until I approve of them. (This used to be more important before patches for js moving browser windows and the like)
While most JS wont break out of the browser in most cases, what you can do within the browser to determine where you have been, who you are, and (if you visit samy.pl) things like enumerating your local network or running a bitcoin miner with JS are possible.
While I agree with you in spirit, this doesn't seem to be true in practice. I also browse with JS turned off by default, and, in general, whenever I visit a new site, I often find it blank, or completely illegible. After allowing JavaScript for that site, I then often have to play a guessing game of what CDNs or other external resources I have to allow before anything will display. (For example, I was able to see weather on weather.com—hardly anyone's idea of a good Internet citizen, but the first one that springs to mind—simply by allowing JavaScript from their domain; but had to guess around quite a bit before I could get the settings icon to display.)
There were a time when the internet was about reading text, but that has long since passed. Without javascript you can't have a presentation overlayed with video (say of the presenter), you can't have real time anything, you can't comment without having to reload the page, etc. Look at how horrible the UX of HN is compared to reddit.
If plain HTML isn't good enough, it just means we need a better HTML.
Why is it arrogant? Surely "my site won't work with your browser settings" is not inherently an argument that I have to change my browser settings!
I mean, you can say "by browsing with JavaScript off, you kill the rich web", but I can also say "by refusing to make available a plain-text version of your site, you kill the information web" (with whatever appropriate buzzwords substituted for my ungainly ones). Many of the same arguments here could, I think, have explained why Flash is absolutely necessary for the modern web—until Apple's weight showed that it isn't.
If you trust javascript that little, just turn it off entirely in your browser and let the rest of the web be. You're far, far more at risk from the browser itself, plugins and apps than from javascript.
>The idea that any junk website is allowed to execute code on your machine without asking or even the user being aware is a fundamental security flaw.
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
Regarding plugins, the best solution I have found is to have none enabled. Firefox still sends them in the list when using click-to-play, so it is necessary to disable them completely.
As to the plugin list, you could make it non-enumerable, but then one could just probe for the X most common ones, like can be done for fonts.
You are right that this gives more information to a determined person, but anyone who pushes fingerprinting to the point of detecting a user’s browser version and other characteristics through JavaScript will certainly be able to identify you uniquely anyway. In such a case, it doesn’t matter than this person has more or less information, since he can already identify you; and having a generic user agent makes people who only look at it know less about you.
p0f, for example, can do this.
http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/p0f3/
E.g., even if you wear a burqa, you can still be tracked by the color of your sandals, the speed by which you move, the perfume that you use, etc.
Hence, the problem is probably best attacked by making appropriate laws that prohibit use of tracking information.
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but being a former CTO of an adserving company, I feel qualified to at least voice my opinion: this was a brilliant move by Microsoft. The DNT header as it were, was a perfect middle-ground for advertising companies: people that cared enough were able to opt-out, and people that did not care would still be able to be tracked.
Google had the most to lose. I feel Microsoft made this decision in order to (accelerate the) kill of the DNT header, and thus hoping on more severe legislation.
I'm not saying it's necessarily what happened with the DNT header, but they'd do well to avoid drawing too much attention to themselves in certain cases.
If we are goign to get something like Do Not Track, then it should have been drafted out of the public eye, had a nice short period for public comment and then recieved some sort of backing in law. Speculative implementations didn't really help.
I'm not too familiar with the laws surrounding things like 'do not call' lists and anti-spam measures, but some sort of system from that area of law could surely have been a part of DNT.
Cookie popups were stupid - cookies aren't really an opt-in system. DNT should have been an opt-out system for off-site tracking. If Facebook tracks you through a like button or Google tracks you through an ad/analytics after you sent then a DNT header, they get into trouble.
Maybe the header size effect DNT could have been mitigated by not sending it to sites with the same origin as the current page (or another origin policy that the website specifies).
I'm confused by this—how would drafting the law / specification / whatever out of the public eye have helped the process?
Sure, but so doing might carry its own risk—namely, no community investment once the proposal was released. A very consistent proposal by which no-one feels represented isn't necessarily an improvement!
The only real solution is client-side, and we have that technology now: hosts-blocking, Ghostery, AdBlock, etc. If enough people cared, it could be enabled by default on new browser installs.
Now, granted, it's technically far inferior to a DNT header (it sets a cookie on each ad network domain) but as far as I can tell it works and has worked for years.
Rather what I do is to blackhole the analytics servers with my /etc/hosts:
Unfortunately one must jailbreak mobile devices to get at their hosts files. I understand that Windows no longer uses it at all.Better would be to block the analytics services at the router, or preload a caching DNS server with them.
I also avoid "Log In With Facebook" &c. I don't register at a site unless it offers its own login facility.
Strictly speaking DNS is a protocol and not an API. Applications aren't required to perform name lookups by using any particular software, it's just common to use what the OS supplies.