Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherCat
Ah, I see it; I had looked there but not noticed it hidden  amongst the "small print"  .
It was introduced in the November 2011 release. But, I believe, that it relies on the presence of the Do Not Track Header at the site (I think Firefox is the same), if it exists and for which there is no standard. Consequently Google's weasel words about its (non)effectiveness.
I believe that IE also now recognises the DNT header (since IE10??), if it exists, but it certainly continues to use its original user downloadable and controlled lists of sites, to which tracking information is actually blocked, as well. |
Yes, the problem with Do Not Track is that all it is is a special request where the browser goes "Please, pretty please, O kind and wonderful website, respect this user's desires and delete your logs of his/her travels on you."
There is NO WAY to force a website to delete it's record of your presence, short of hacking their servers. You can refuse to ping them for data files (which is what Adblock Plus and the Microsoft clone Tracking Protection do with known tracking scripts/cookies/images/etc.) but once you download that file, the website has logged your IP address and potentially a list of your unique plugins set and probably associated a cookie with it.
To truly understand the need for paranoia, look here:
https://panopticlick.eff.org/