The decision of the Internet advertising industry to ignore the original Do Not Track setting is a landmark in the cynicism of the industry. I mean users made an explicit request to not be tracked and companies like Google and Facebook were all "lol, no, we'll track you anyway". It's one of the reasons I feel no remorse running an ad blocker.
As others have mentioned here, this is akin to a sheep carrying a sign saying "please don't eat me", hoping wolves would respect it.
Furthermore, this sheep just highlighted the fact that it's a troublesome sheep, that requires special attention (i.e. if the DNT flag is in the header of the first request to my site, I know I can bust out my adblock-bypassing scripts, and start serving ads differently).
When I worked for [name of major ad-supported company redacted], I specifically asked a senior PM one day why are we ignoring the DNT flag in our products. He said "because that's how we make our money", thought for another second and added "also, everyone else ignores it".
I don't really understand how this is supposed to help. If I'm an advertiser/tracker/etc, what keeps me from adding the policy file to my website - so adblock, duckduckgo etc. are happy - and then blatantly violating it?
The "policy" doesn't seem to be legally binding in any way, there is no way to even detect violations and the EFF itself writes that it can't enforce it:
> Posting the dnt-policy.txt file makes a promise to the users who interact with their domain. We believe it would be a false and misleading trade practice to post the policy without the intent to comply in good faith. However, EFF is not in a position to enforce this promise or monitor compliance. 
So what's the point?
This is from 2015.
I seriously doubt this will gain much traction. I would love it to, but I doubt the motives behind advertisers.
When Ad companies learn to play nice and not hijack my browser and occasionally serve up out right malware, maybe, just MAYBE, will I reconsider playing nice with them.
My issue with DNT is that it is generally another bit of uniqueness that makes my browser slightly EASIER to track for anyone who doesn't care about obeying it, which are likely the greatest threats.
If a security or privacy model depends on the cooperation of those on the other end of the wire, it will fail.
IMO, tracking should be strictly opt-in, making it opt-out is abusive and ubethical.
I recently learned of GDPR. Although I'm uncertain of the exact law's implementation details, I think it's a step in the right direction. It's strictly opt-in and requires providing a clear explanation of what data gets collected.
It is one of these things that it is too little too late. Ad blockers filled in the gap and there is no need for a solution anymore.
Not to mention that AdBlock has lost all the good faith from the users, so including it in the coalition only does damage to the public image.
Please don't kill anyone vs. killing is against the law and you'll go to jail if you do it.
I know which one works best.
Coalition Announces New “Please Don’t Listen” Standard against Man-in-the-middle Attacks
> Disconnect’s partners in this launch are the innovative publishing site Medium
I know this is off-topic, but what is so innovative about Medium? Does it break any significant ground beyond what LiveJournal was doing almost two decades ago?
Cool, a new way our browsers can be fingerprinted! Thanks EFF for one more bit of entropy!
Yes I know this was in good faith, but when you are trying to get good faith agreement against the business model of an industry, it's no surprise it was a failure.
The ad bubble and how it affects Google/Mozilla is now one of my favorite topics. It is not just Google, but it is the most interesting.
Now all we need if for websites to automatically hide the cookie warning header when DNT is set.
AUGUST 3, 2015