The thing about DNT is that the advertising industry (not malicious/shady websites) are supportive of it as a voluntary standard that they will comply with it. All the major players are saying they won't play nicely with IE10 due to the default on flag instead of a default null (no intent expressed) flag.
In other words meaning they're not going to support it...
"We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" is not really supporting DNT. It really shows they're business model depends on people being computer illiterate. And now that DNT is on by default they're revolting because they know few people will ever go out of their way to opt-in and get tracked.
> "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default"
No, they are only going to support it if it is _actually_ the users intent, not a vendors intent. This is completely reasonable and the actions of MS are undermining the efforts to get this voluntary standard going. Keep in mind, DNT is completely voluntary.
One could just as easily argue that a user should only be tracked if it's their explicit intent to be tracked, in which case DNT should be on unless the user turns it off. That makes more sense to me, and I think a lot of people would agree. Obviously, Microsoft thinks that should be the case.
One could also argue that Microsoft is not being pragmatic in expecting these companies to continue to honour it if it is on by default. At least when it is off by default, it will be honoured if a user opts to turn it on.
I agree, additionally it's not even really "off" by default. The default in the spec right now is a null value which indicates "we don't know" which is actually accurate until the user makes a choice.
Doesn't that make sense? If someone doesn't care enough to go in and turn on DNT, why does it matter if they're tracked? The default should obviously be 'null', that's the most equitable choice for all parties involved.
