The idea of Microsoft enabling a do not track feature in it’s release of Internet Explorer 10 has created a lot of discussion in the industry. While there are a lot of views being expressed, I wanted to take a moment and provide a few basics for those who are not familiar with the Do Not Track (DNT) debate.
At it’s core, Do Not Track is a standard proposed by the W3C that would enable web users to express consent to their online behavior being monitored. This online tracking is primarily done through third-party cookies and for the purposes of targeted advertising.
Back in 2009 the Federal Trade Commission hinted to an online “Do Not Track” similar to the “Do Not Call” list for telemarketers. An important distinction here is that the DNT initiative is not backed by any legislation, nor is the standard finalized, and is fully voluntary. Further, DNT is a technical specification and does not cover the ethics of it’s implementation.
DNT is not new. FireFox already supports it in it’s Firefox browser 4 released earlier this year, and Opera recently announced it will be supported in it’s next release. Pseudo-technically, DNT is a setting that the browser will include in it’s exchange with page requests. There are three possible states. A status of 1 indicates the user does not provide consent to be tracked, a value of 0 provides consent, and the absence of the DNT indicates the visitor has not expressed their preference.
The primary debate is around Microsoft’s intention to enable DNT by default. To further complicate things, the W3C added to it’s specification that the DNT should not be set by default.
The best description that I’ve come across in the argument to not have DNT set by default is by the Network Advertising Initiative:
But with a default-on mechanism, the impact on small online publishers and third-party technology providers, which are vital to today’s Internet, would be nothing short of catastrophic. Publishers of free content, services, and entertainment may move behind pay walls, or may disappear altogether, if they can’t monetize their content with targeted ads. For many third party companies, which facilitate interest-based ads or personalization, a default-on system jeopardizes their business – meaning no business. I don’t like to inject hyperbole into this discussion, but we are talking about no less than thousands of lost jobs and billions of dollars in lost revenue.
On the other side, the approach that Microsoft has taken is best described by their chief privacy officer Brandon Lynch
Microsoft believes “that consumers should have more control over how information about their online behavior is tracked, shared and used,” chief privacy officer Brendon Lynch wrote in a memo yesterday. Part of that choice is deciding whether or not they want to receive more relevant advertising. And here’s the touchpoint: “[DNT] advances the idea of privacy as the default state.
The debate on both sides is quite active and interesting to follow. Though one view that I was surprised not see get more attention is one expressed by John Battelle on this searchblog
To me, this presents a huge opportunity for the owner of a site to engage with its readers, and explain quite clearly the fact that good content on the Internet is paid for by good marketing on the Internet. And good marketing often needs to use “tracking” data so as to present quality advertising in context.
So there you go, a few basics on DNT. As a consumer you can look forward to new options around controlling your online privacy, and for any of those involved in third party based advertising, this debate will surely be followed closely.