Is 'Do Not Track' a meme?

Is it worth enabling 'Do Not Track' in your browser?
The EFF pushes it hard, but it seems naive to trust that tracking companies would actually honor it.

Attached: 1535546544065.jpg (1000x1230, 759K)

It's like putting pic related in the middle of Detroit at night with a t-shirt saying "Please don't rape me".

Attached: 15625061_188157858317857_7738131444924416000_n.jpg.34a74ff07dde54e3baf97177e6df945b.jpg (750x937, 185K)

I'd let palvin track me any day

What more can they do with it?
>No DNT request
they track you
>DNT request
maybe they dont track you

Dnt is a Trojan horse to make people safe. What they want is people to activate dnt so they don’t feel the need to download actually useful addons like privacy possum, ublock or umatrix

To make people feel safe*

It does nothing except make you easier to fingerprint. You should be blocking anything that can track you anyway.

More like:
>no DNT header
They definitely track you
>DNT header
They definitely still track you and they can immediately identify that you're from the relatively small percentage of users who enable DNT (since it's not on by default and easily 90%+ of people online are normies who only use the default settings on their browser).

DNT is the default on Firefox

Oh is it? That's nice I guess. Then obviously you'd want to leave it on UNLESS you spoof your user agent (which you should be doing, by the way).

there have been news reports showing most websites just ignore the request.

I respect DNT on all my website. Matomo have an option to ignore it, but I prefer not to because I'm not a Jew

Attached: Dq28TglUcAEABBo.jpg (1024x721, 113K)

>I respect DNT on all my website.
What are you fucking tracking when the header isn't being sent, you jew?

Palvin actually dates black men.

Let's not forget it adds 8 bytes to every request sent

Always assume you're being tracked.

Believe noone.

It's a meme for normies who believe anything.

Damn, I didn't know that. My American ISP starts throttling me after 5000 bytes. Thanks.

Microsoft has murdered it.
They "accidentally" enabled it by default in IE 10-11. "Not realizing" that having it enabled by default would give advertisers the perfect excuse to ignore it, "because they can't suddenly stop showing 20% of users ads and tracking. MUH MONEY!".

The ad-berg now moans and oy veys because of this track-shoah.
Probably only 1-2% of IE users from that time still have it enabled by default from back in that time and it would also be really trivial to do some minimal user agent sniffing to ignore DNT from any "trident" browser, but no.

The ad industry claims they can't, for some reason. I sure wonder why. It's almost as if it was only an excuse to not honor the DNT, LOL, hahaha!

count the bytes and the megaberts look after themselves

I wouldn’t trust DNT on its own. The advertisers doesn’t necessarily have to abide by it. Malvertisers like PopAds especially won’t follow it. Just get Ublock and enable anti-tracking filters there instead or use AdNauseum or other tracking obfuscators to spoof search history.

>spoof your user agent
I refer to this site that lists the most popular ones and select the most common firefox one for windows or linux, depending on which one I'm on. I understand that one can tell if you're lying, due to network stack and whatnot, but how accurate is that, and how often do sites go the distance?

>I understand that one can tell if you're lying, due to network stack and whatnot
There are always small ways that get missed, but I'm fairly certain the network stack implementation is abstracted far enough that that's not one of them. I might be wrong though.
>how accurate is that
Anything can be spoofed - there's no fundamental reason why a Linux machine couldn't be sending the exact same packets as a Windows machine running Chrome.
>how often do sites go the distance?
There are fingerprinting libraries that try to look at tons and tons of stuff, and you can be sure that the hardcore ad networks - the ones that try to serve you 2MB of tracking javascript code - definitely go all the distance. That said almost every other entity probably doesn't, like fuck I doubt even Google Analytics would do that since they claim to be anonymised and if they started fingerprinting people using advanced techniques that would kind of contradict that.

What about the differences between browsers? Would it make more sense to just spoof one's user agent to the most common one? I'm using waterfox right now, and I'm considering some anti canvas fingerprinting addons. However, they apparently spoof it to a random one for each request, and I've read this makes one easier to track and I've been holding out because of this.

Right now, they may not, but all that needs to happen is enough users convince one big site to come out and market how they respect users' privacy by respecting the header. Then more normies know about the option and demand that the sites they use respect it, and maybe the EU amends GDPR to include respecting the header in addition to the cookie notification policy. The Internet continues to be the wild west with fewer cows and more screwed cable customers, but at least for some sites it may be cheaper to just have one compliant model than a different model between the US and EU.

There's one that can keep consistent readouts for a single session, so you're tracked until you close your browser. That's what I use. There's also resistFingerprinting in about:config, which makes it return a hardcoded value that's the same as the Tor Browser IIRC - not that many people use Tor Browser or set this option to true, but in theory if nothing else you have gives entropy it would still be a pretty good way to blend in. In practice you can probably be identified pretty easily.

If hypothetically Mozilla were to turn that option on by default then that would be very awesome.