Mozilla to remove the Do Not Track setting from Firefox in the upcoming version 135 update
-
Mozilla Firefox has reportedly removed the "Do Not Track" (DNT) feature from Firefox starting with version 135. This decision marks the end of a feature first introduced in 2009, making Firefox the pioneer browser to implement this privacy-focused option. This shouldn't be a surprise for most Firefox users, though, since the setting has been disabled by default in the latest versions of the browser.
The removal aligns with Apple's earlier decision to eliminate DNT from Safari in 2019. The feature was meant to ask websites to stop tracking users, but most ignored it. Worse, it backfired by signaling websites, making it easier to identify and track users, ultimately rendering it ineffective.
Mozilla's support page now reflects this change, advising users to enable the "Tell websites not to sell or share my data" setting, which utilizes the Global Privacy Control (GPC) standard.
Yesterday by Mauricio B. Holguin
>Laptop ACER, AMD Ryzen, GPU AMD Radeon RAM 16GB, SSD 512GB -Win11 Home 64 v24H2| Vivaldi last stable|
-
@Catweazle omg, more reason to avoid firefox, glad vivaldi is here
-
@shojivrstrinova8 said in Mozilla to remove the Do Not Track setting from Firefox in the upcoming version 135 update:
glad vivaldi is here
Yes, Vivaldi has a privacy setting to send such header "Do no Track".
-
I have always found this "feature" silly.
There is no such thing as "track friendly", if a site wants to track you it's not going to stop just because you ask it to, it's ridiculous.
-
@barbudo2005, should be legally binding, GPC isn't anyway better, but that's what tracker blockers are for.
-
Said:
..should be legally binding...
Pure goodism.
Why are you going to force by law that sites don't track you if you ask them to, if nobody forces you to visit them.
-
@barbudo2005 said in Mozilla to remove the Do Not Track setting from Firefox in the upcoming version 135 update:
I have always found this "feature" silly.
Same do i. I considered this in the past as weak try to give users better privacy but companies servers ignored it.
-
@barbudo2005, I don't see it this way. It's like going to a supermarket where a guy persistently hounds you for a discount card, even though you tell him you don't want it.
If we do not allow in real life that some commercial imposes something on us against our will, even giving us the right to file a complaint for harassment, I do not see the reason to allow it on the Internet.>Laptop ACER, AMD Ryzen, GPU AMD Radeon RAM 16GB, SSD 512GB -Win11 Home 64 v24H2| Vivaldi last stable|
-
Said:
It's like going to a supermarket where a guy persistently hounds you for a discount card, even though you tell him you don't want it.
Bad example. Failed logic.
1.- If I go to a supermarket and buy something (paying), I have every right as a consumer to demand that the quality of the product is right.
2.- If I am harassed when I enter the store by someone offering me a card, he is doing his job and it depends on your personality how you deal with it.
3.- If I visit a site and use the information that the site offers you for free, I have no legal right to demand anything.
-
2 The guy do his job offering an discount card which I respect, but not if he persistently continue with this offer, despite that I said no to it. Than his job turned into harassment
We accept sadly a lot of things in the web, which in the real world we never would accept. A good example that Google read our e-mail. Do you tolerate that the postman read your correspondence?
>Laptop ACER, AMD Ryzen, GPU AMD Radeon RAM 16GB, SSD 512GB -Win11 Home 64 v24H2| Vivaldi last stable|
-
-
Said:
Do you tolerate that the postman read your correspondence?
Spain Post Office has been doing this for a long time, or you had not noticed?
-
Very few sites actually observe this user option anyway. I leave it unchecked.
When I'm done there is the "Three Fingered Salute" = Ctrl+Shift+Del then File > Exit (Alt+f > x).
-
Do not track is theoretically an agreement made with the site you visit, however that only applies to the site owner, not the myriad of adverts with their own trackers that may populate the site.
The impact of having the option on is minimal when you don't make the same agreement with each of the advert vendors.
-
@barbudo2005, yes, in the fascist Franquism. Now you go for this to the jail. It can be done only by the police with an court order in a crime investigation.
-
@barbudo2005 said in Mozilla to remove the Do Not Track setting from Firefox in the upcoming version 135 update:
Spain Post Office has been doing this for a long time
The former MfS did it for years, so what is the news? No one needs to bitch about the fakts, 'cause everyone know about this crap ...
BTW: I never use the option do not track, because .....
-
People making a big deal out of this, don't understand the reality that it does not work as intended in the first place, since it can simply be ignored and is. This is really a big nothing.
-
One of the most overlooked aspects of using a browser regarding tracking is blocking the HTTP referer. Do Not Track is a nice notion but ignored most of the time.
Blocking the referer goes a long way in cutting down on tracking because if you block the referer, going from one website to another, the receiving website doesn't see where you came from. You appear to have simply landed there as if by typing in the URL. Websites love referer data. They use it for all manner of purposes, to see who is driving traffic to them is but one. -
@Dr-Flay said in Mozilla to remove the Do Not Track setting from Firefox in the upcoming version 135 update:
Do not track is theoretically an agreement made with the site you visit, however that only applies to the site owner, not the myriad of adverts with their own trackers that may populate the site.
The impact of having the option on is minimal when you don't make the same agreement with each of the advert vendors.
That field is in the browser's request header, which is sent to every site the browser visits, whether it is a first or third party.
-
I have read a similar discussion in another platform some time last year. One of them claimed that (in the EU zone only) it is legally binding. It has something to do with if the dispute goes to court of law, the judges would take it into account or something along those lines. I don't reside in the EU zone currently so I wouldn't know much if this is bs or has any substence...
