



That sounds like a fairly uncontroversial position to take, but it's one that is proving to be problematic thanks to the company's decision to enable a Do Not Track feature by default in the latest version of Microsoft's flagship browser, Internet Explorer 10.

The industry, for obvious reasons, has expressed concern that Microsoft is going to make it harder for advertisers to target consumers with relevant ads. Advertisers naturally see more sophisticated targeting as a boon to their online advertising efforts and publishers believe that less targeting could lead to less revenue if advertisers are limited in how they can use user data to deliver the right ads to the right users at the right times.

Microsoft's move has thrown the Do Not Track standard, which has still yet to be finalized, into disarray. Enabling Do Not Track by default would appear to run afoul of the proposed specification as currently written, leading some publishers, like Yahoo, to declare that they will ignore Internet Explorer's Do Not Track setting.

Microsoft stands firm, recommends more complexity

Despite the possibility that a Do Not Track standard will collapse because of its action, Microsoft is refusing to bow to pressure from advertisers and publishers. In a blog post on Wednesday, Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith reiterated that his company is committed to its default Do Not Track settings:

Since our announcement, we’ve heard from a variety of voices about our decision. We’re listening. While we remain steadfast in our decision to enable the DNT signal in IE 10, we also recognize that turning the signal on is only the first step. To achieve the full value and benefit of DNT, the industry needs to fully implement a response to the signal.

As Microsoft continues work on its own implementation, we are committed to working with others to develop a consistent, agreed upon response so that DNT works for consumers, while giving them the choice and flexibility they say they want.

Smith goes on to suggest that, in the name of said "choice and flexibility", Do Not Track could become a more complex proposition for consumers:

One possible implementation may be an effort already underway by the W3C to establish standards for what I’ll call a “permissions API,” a mechanism to give consumers more fine-grained control over their privacy and allow them to give specific permission to individual websites, businesses and organizations to collect information, even when DNT is on. This is a strong option, but only if the outcome respects the initial intent behind enabling the DNT signal in the first place.

Facebook privacy meets the web

On paper, "fine-grained control" sounds good. After all, when offered control and flexibility, one-size-fits-all solutions are rarely as attractive. But theory and reality aren't always in sync and the situation with Facebook's privacy controls is a good example of this. They too have increasingly evolved to offer more "choice and flexibility" through "fine-grained" options, but instead of making it easier for individuals to guard their privacy on Facebook, they have often created confusion.

Microsoft's Smith says he hopes "2013 will be the year in which a self-regulatory approach to online privacy succeeds," and laments the fact that the alternative is "a patchwork of regulations imposed by governments around the globe" that will be less effective for everyone, but one thing seems certain: complicated Do Not Track response rules and a "permissions API" are likely to impede rather than promote progress in the coming year.


Topics: Strategy & Operations
Add your own

Reader comments (2)

  1. Brandt Dainow Brandt Dainow

    Director at ThinkMetrics

    12:06PM on 17th December 2012

    This article is a fine example of how to condemn a principle on the basis that one attempt was poorly executed. Facebook made a mess of their privacy system, so we should therefore reject Microsoft's DNT! The two are not related at all. This whole item is just advertising for advertisers.
    Advertisers continue to disregard user concerns over privacy, hypnotised by the profits they think they'll get in more targetting. "Who cares if users don't want it? Let's stuff it down their throats anyway!" After years of trying to convince users of the value, they still don't want it. "Gee - they must be stupid, let's ignore their preferences."
    Targetting is not transparent, is unregulated and is frequently misused. If the ad industry can't keep tracking ethical, controlled, and respectful of people's concerns, default to DNT is obviously inevitable. The ad industry should try to get with the program and not fight the consumer. It should work out ways of delivering better ads without upsetting people's privacy concerns. You can't make money by arguing with your marketplace.

  2. Bill Obermeier Bill Obermeier

    Marketing Director at Trueffect Inc

    9:14PM on 17th December 2012

    Blanket statements about "disregarding user concerns of privacy," may not lead to an accurate conclusion. For example, research reported in eMarketer earlier this year indicated 50% of responders said they do want retailers where they shop to offer promotions and merchandising “tailored to my past purchasing and browsing behavior.”

    The truly consumer sensitive mindset will recognize both consumer and advertiser dilemmas in developing a solution that empowers consumers to choose what experiences they want. It doesn't seem to me that a default setting is "empowering."

Log in to post a comment