Was curious how they were able to detect the presence of a tracking company's cookie.
They're using an API provided by all of these tracking companies where they vend an image whose height is either 43 pixels (indicating you have a cookie) or 44 pixels (indicating you have no cookie).
Does anyone know if there was legislation that made this API a requirement, or is this an example of an industry policing itself in an attempt to stay unregulated?
When you opt out of a network, the participating network will assign you an opt out cookie. When you visit a website that indirectly loads these tracking pages, it will check to see if you have their opt out cookie. If you do, they will avoid assigning you their tracking cookie.
These tools basically help you manage and persist the opt-out cookies so that when you clear your browser's cookies, the browser doesn't remove these opt out cookies.
Otherwise, they will redirect you to image that says you have their tracking cookie. You can subsequently use javascript to inspect the dimension of the image to determine whether or not you have opt out of that network.
It's self-regulation, sponsored I believe by the Network Advertising Initiative. NAI is an industry group, analogous to the DMAI in the direct mail world. Most of the responsible advertisers work with them.
The FTC has been making noise about actually doing something. [1] There are also proposals to W3C defining a 'Do Not Track' HTTP header rather than cookies. [2]
This isn't the first page to offer a way to opt out of all of those cookie. It's also not the first site to crash halfway through the process (in this case, it thinks I've already opted out even after clearing cache and cookies).
It's a given that the ad companies will provide flaky opting out mechanisms. They are likely responding to spikes in opt-out attempts by falling over on purpose whenever a site like this hits HN. Who is going to step up and write a version of this service with error handling?
Seemed fishy to enable JS but I was curious. I'm being tracked by at least 0 companies. Pretty good.
I don't like opting out of things because in order to opt out; you need to tell them who you are which combined with the instantaneous nearly free communication tools (email). I would be adversely affected, probably more so after 'opting out' (eg increased exempted robo-calls from charities/politics since they know you pay attention).
This is kind of like trying to op out getting into a car crash. Or better, getting robbed.
Hello Customer, Acct#6548856 we are not tracking you. No, some other company is tracking you. Were not doing it directly but we sure are buying data from companies who do.
Not getting tracked, I can think of a few companies that a large part of it's worth is by all the information they collect/track.
Facebook? - Last time I checked they don't pay employees minimum wage. When is the last time you had to pay Facebook to access it? Money is coming from someplace. Directly or indirectly someone is going to be tracking you.
This whole business is suspicious if you ask me. SelectOut doesn't sell a product and is designed to remove its user base from the advertising industry. If there is no money being generated by the product and all the advertising bridges are burned, where is the money coming from to keep development of a product like this moving forward?
It seems likely to me that, through these opt-out services, someone out there is still getting handed your information.
It could be interesting if it become popular for websites to present some or all of those images to all visitors if the image size test revealed they hadn't opted out.
They're using an API provided by all of these tracking companies where they vend an image whose height is either 43 pixels (indicating you have a cookie) or 44 pixels (indicating you have no cookie).
Does anyone know if there was legislation that made this API a requirement, or is this an example of an industry policing itself in an attempt to stay unregulated?