When reading my local newspaper online this morning, I noticed for the first time a small message, lower-left of the window, "Opt-Out Signal Honored". A little quick searching turned up GPC, Global Privacy Control https://globalprivacycontrol.org/
The GPC signal is intended to communicate a Do Not Sell or Share request under the California Consumer Privacy Act, and similar state privacy laws that allow users to opt out of data sales or the use of their data for cross-context targeted advertising. Under the GDPR, the intent of the GPC signal is to convey a general request that data controllers limit the sale or sharing of the user's personal data to other data controllers (GDPR Articles 7 & 21). The GPC may also invoke other compatible rights in other jurisdictions.
A little more digging shows that SN covered this in late 2020 (five+ years ago), https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=20/10/08/0119236 but at that time it was in the FSF Privacy Badger--which I was already using back then.
So my first thought is that all of a sudden my state (not California) has turned on a similar rule. But then, my partner's Win11 PC (no Privacy Badger) gave the same message on a consumer company catalog page (from yet a third state)--so maybe the message is coming from somewhere else? We do both use Firefox, but I'm on ESR (for Win7) and they are on the main track.
Why did the message start to appear today? Does GPC actually work? Any relation to the European GDPR?
« AI.Com's $85 Million Super Bowl Ad Campaign Falls Foul as Traffic Crashes Servers | Microsoft Does Something Useful, Adds Sysmon to Windows »
Related Stories
'Do Not Track' Is Back, and This Time It Might Work:
What do you call a privacy law that only works if users individually opt out of every site or app they want to stop sharing their data? A piece of paper.
Or you could call it the California Consumer Privacy Act. In theory, the law gives California residents the right to opt out of any business selling their data. In practice, it hasn't seen much use. Most people don't go to the trouble of opting out of every website, one at a time. One analysis, by DataGrail, a privacy compliance company, found that there were only 82 "do not sell" requests for every million consumer records over the first six months of the year. A study published last week by Consumer Reports helps explain why: Opting out of everything is a complicated pain in the ass.
Change could be coming, however. The CCPA includes a mechanism for solving the one-by-one problem. The regulations interpreting the law specify that businesses must respect a "global privacy control" sent by a browser or device. The idea is that instead of having to change privacy settings every time you visit a new site or use a new app, you could set your preference once, on your phone or in a browser extension, and be done with it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by cereal_burpist on Wednesday February 11, @05:22AM (10 children)
So apparently GPC does work (to some degree), if websites are telling you "Opt-Out Signal Honored".
(Score: 5, Informative) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday February 11, @06:37AM (8 children)
I can make a webpage that says "Opt-Out Signal Honored" in two seconds flat.
If you think seeing anything on the internet has any relationship to it being true, you haven't been online for very long.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by quietus on Wednesday February 11, @09:31AM (6 children)
You can also make a website which doesn't say that -- like the vast majority out there.
This could well become a new quality label, to distinguish your shop from the competition.
(Score: 2) by Username on Wednesday February 11, @03:16PM (5 children)
They could even go a step further and use the analytics they gathered of my online identity and give me a "we support Trans rights" if they determine i am a tranny, or "We stand with Israel" if I'm a zionist, etc.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday February 11, @03:44PM (3 children)
They might serve you ads for adult diapers, seeing as though you still use that slur.
(Score: 2) by Username on Wednesday February 11, @06:14PM (2 children)
>hey might serve you ads for adult diapers
There are a lot of trannies that are straight, not all are gay bottoms. Probably safer to serve me generic trans rights than make that assumption. This is assuming I'm not self hating, and Trans exclusionary.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by weirsbaski on Wednesday February 11, @06:48PM (1 child)
Maybe I'm misreading, but I don't think GP's comment was about whether they're "all gay bottoms", it's that "tranny" is the kind of word used by stereotypical "people old enough to not know any better".
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday February 12, @02:08AM
Tranny was never a nice word. But in my recollection, it was mostly used up to the 80s or 90s by ordinary folks without bad intentions. At least that's when I heard it most often. After that, I mostly heard it from intolerant anti-trans people as a straight insult.
Nowadays, if you hear someone casually talk about trannies, you have to assume they're at least old enough to have been a teenager in the 80s, was my point.
As for refraining from using ir, I'm old enough to have used it innocently myself many times in the past - and a lot of other words too. And while I don't know much of the trans scene, I'm at least aware that it's one of those words that have turned seriously nasty over the decades.
It doesn't hurt me to stop using it, and since it hurts folks I have nothing against, I choose not to use it anymore. Simple as that.
OP doesn't sound like he's out to insult trans people, so maybe he're not aware it's not great to use it anymore.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday February 12, @04:19PM
It means something completely different if you confidentially tell your auto mechanic "I blew a tranny".
Infinity is clearly an even number since the next higher number is odd.
(Score: 2) by cereal_burpist on Thursday February 12, @02:41AM
You are correct, sir.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, @12:42PM
> Introduced in Firefox version 120
Perhaps that Mozilla page needs an update? I'm using Firefox ESR, the latest version is 115.xx -- and when I look at:
Privacy & Security
Website Privacy Preferences
Tell websites not to sell or share my data option
the option is enabled.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday February 11, @06:33AM (6 children)
It might be honored (fat chance, but let's assume for the sake of argument) but setting it lowers your privacy as it adds to your browser's fingerprint's uniqueness. Or said another way, since most people don't bother setting it, you flag yourself as more unusual than the norm, making your browser easier to track.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday February 11, @09:39AM (3 children)
Moot point, I think. Browser fingerprinting is aimed at catching the vast mass of consumers -- they're probably not *especially* interested in that vanishingly small subset dedicated to electronics, UTP cat6 cabling and pictures of server racks sex cabling, for whom the use of a Linux or BSD OS is a dead giveaway anyhow.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, @12:30PM
> pictures of server racks sex cabling
Are your racks full of female connectors(grin)?
(Score: 5, Funny) by OrugTor on Wednesday February 11, @04:38PM (1 child)
Oddly specific.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, @03:06AM
No kink shaming.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Zinho on Wednesday February 11, @05:10PM (1 child)
If you're that concerned, you could use any of the browser fingerprint randomizers available as plugins. It's possible to present a different, 100% unique fingerprint each session. At that point it won't matter that you have 1 bit less entropy in the mix.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Thursday February 12, @04:10AM
A 100% unique fingerprint is identifiable if there are only a handful of people doing so and moreso, that doesn't prevent tracking if you're connecting from the same IPv4 address and/or addresses in a /64 or /48 range.
You can minimize your browser fingerprint if your browser doesn't execute proprietary malware JavaScript (used for most fingerprinting), but few browsers don't execute JavaScript.
The only browser that offers decent fingerprinting resistance is Tor Browser with JavaScript disabled.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 11, @06:55PM (1 child)
Too hard to use
https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2021/10/28/implementing-global-privacy-control/ [mozilla.org]
They could have made it worse, like require the user to submit the request on punch cards using MVS JCL on an IBM 360 mainframe. But not much worse.
This seems to be an extremely effective way to get your info sold as a known and verified privacy fanatic. Ooh this is a 1 in a million with their signal set, flag this one for 'special processing' We can discuss that later. But first, stay tuned for this important message about purchasing VPN service, followed by a commercial from snakeoil.com about their new "ROT13" series of quantum-resistant high security USB flash drives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 11, @07:59PM
> Too hard to use
You found 5 year old instructions. It's now in the Firefox menus, Settings | Privacy & Security, with a little picture of a slide switch--even you should be able to figure this one out.
Or, as noted in tfa, install FSF Privacy Badger and it comes enabled.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 12, @02:48AM
Can the small timers still fly below the radar? e.g. if a site like SN leaked out data what happens?