| haha Usually I would be pro cell phone maker in this case, but it's Microsoft....
If Verizon is truly blocking it because they need the access to maintain network reliability, then they have a very valid reason. If they just want it for control... well Microsoft should not be one to complain. Since when have they been pro user privacy? Their little decision to enable "do not track" by default is going to kill the chance of gaining privacy we had.
This is about control. They both want control and they can't both have their way. |
|
| said by silbaco:Their little decision to enable "do not track" by default is going to kill the chance of gaining privacy we had.
You must be a washington lobbyist, because your statement makes no sense at all.
You must believe verizons bullshit, too.... |
|
|
|
| said by EdmundGerber:said by silbaco:Their little decision to enable "do not track" by default is going to kill the chance of gaining privacy we had.
You must be a washington lobbyist, because your statement makes no sense at all. You must believe verizons bullshit, too.... Is that so? Care to explain how my statement is wrong?
The idea behind do not track was that we had to "opt in" and make an effort to protect our own privacy. Some advertisers and websites actually respected that. The whole thing was voluntary. Then Microsoft said they would make it enabled by default, forcing people to opt out. Now no one has to make an effort and advertisers have flipped the do not track initiative the bird. Once everyone has something special, it isn't special anymore. Do not track was actually getting somewhere. It was becoming respectable. Now everyone will have it and most people won't even know it. Advertisers opposed it and Microsoft flipped them the bird. It is us who pay now. Advertisers have outright said they will no longer volunteer to go along if Microsoft continues.
Do not track is not law. You are just a troll. |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | You have valid points but if you think corporate America won't do what's best for profit, should it suit them, you need to reboot your thinking process. As soon as some critical percentage of folks requested do-not-track, they would quietly remove fine print from their web site that says they support the initiative and start tracking you. If called out, they would tell the public their lawyers made them remove the disclaimer because there's no clear definition of what it really means. They would verbally make some claim that sounds like they don't track you but upon further reflection, is meaningless.
Example: We believe that tracking users to gain insight into matters that should remain private, is wrong. We don't do it and we don't support others who do it.
The problem is, who defines what "matters that should remain private" means? It's a feel-good statement that sounds really good but is completely meaningless. |
|
| reply to silbaco
VZ will cloak it as network management when its both that and wanting to resell location data for targeted ads. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to silbaco
Verizon had the same fight with Apple over their "My Verizon" app for the iPhone 4. Apple did not want to bundle it. Verizon didn't like it. Apple told them either they don't bundle it or they don't get the iPhone at all. Verizon caved.
Microsoft simply doesn't have the same pull as Apple does.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. |
|
 spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1
 ·SureWest Internet
| reply to rradina
said by rradina:Example: We believe that tracking users to gain insight into matters that should remain private, is wrong. We don't do it and we don't support others who do it.
The problem is, who defines what "matters that should remain private" means? It's a feel-good statement that sounds really good but is completely meaningless.
Mind blown!! 
--
Romney equals Epic Fail! |
|
