They call it “The Evil Empire”. They call it “M$”. They call it “Microsuck”. Now, it seems, Microsoft wants to be known as The People’s Champion. It has taken a step that “Don’t Be Evil” Google and Firefox-creators Mozilla have vocally refused to do. It has announced that in the forthcoming Internet Explorer 10, the “Do Not Track” setting will be on by default.
While there are arguments that this is not really a big deal (and I’ll get to those), it has thrown the Digital Advertising Alliance (representing an industry worth some $30 billion dollars annually) into an absolute tizzy. Clearly, they at least believe that the number of users with “do not track” turned on will be much, much larger if it is turned on by default than if it is buried away deep in the settings as it is with all current major internet browsers.
So what is Microsoft playing at? After all, Microsoft is a huge player in Internet advertising (and a member of the DAA itself). It not only runs the advertising network behind its “Bing” search engine, but also Yahoo’s advertising network. Microsoft’s foray into the smartphone wars, like Google’s, is all about the advertising proceeds from search and apps and not about making money from the phones themselves. Advertising is THE funding source that makes the Internet go around, and its importance to all things Internet cannot be understated (see also: $30 billion dollar industry, and growing). Isn’t Microsoft’s action here self-defeating?
To really understand this, I need to first explain what “Do Not Track” actually means. It involves the Obama administration, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and sundry others. $30 billion gets you a lot of sundry.
There are two types of technology out there for preventing you, Joe or Joanne Internetuser, from being tracked by every site you visit, feeding advertising servers with full details of your preferences, interests and personalities.
First is the type that simply refuses to send tracking cookies at all, whether they are used for advertising tracking, site analytics or anything else, or only to specific sites where you allow it. Among a small subset of savvy internet users, this type of software has been popular for years. And it is a small subset. Most wouldn’t know where to find it or use it (even now that it is an option, albeit buried, on most browsers: it’s called “Tracking Protection” in Internet Explorer, for example), or couldn’t because they use work computers with settings they cannot change. Even moreso on smartphones, where Apple, Google, app makers and manufacturers are all far more interested in getting your advertising data then they are in creating ways for you to block them. This is not “Do Not Track”.
“Do Not Track” is a signal sent out by internet browsers to all websites they encounter which relies on the website honoring the signal. “Do Not Track” is a proposal that arose from an FTC investigation into internet advertising and has been in negotiations between the aforementioned Digital Advertising Alliance, the FTC and the Obama administration (specifically the Commerce Department). Twitter, which still doesn’t seem to be all that worried about such concerns as “earning money”, was an early and enthusiastic supporter. In February 2012, a compromise was announced: provided that the government didn’t require “Do Not Track” to be turned on by default, DAA members would voluntarily agree to abide by it. Oh, and the other part of the compromise? “Do Not Track” is not “Do Not Collect”. Advertisers can still collect data, just not use it to customize ads.
For the DAA, this was a great outcome and much better than the idea of wider adoption of Internet Explorer’s “Tracking Protection” or Google Chrome’s “Keep My Opt Outs” (the name itself tells you that Google’s version isn’t the most user friendly privacy system in the world).
At the same time, it should now be clear why Microsoft can stomach “Do Not Track”.
Microsoft’s great rival is Google. Google is solely reliant on advertising revenue, and on its intricate and unmatched ability to serve targeted internet advertising. Even the relatively weak “Do Not Track” disrupts Google significantly. If it becomes widespread: and being turned on by default in Internet Explorer insures it would become widespread- Google hurts more than any business on Earth. Does Microsoft also get hurt? Well, yes, but:
- This affects a much smaller percentage of Microsoft’s income than Google’s income; and
- Microsoft would hope that the positive publicity from this move will drive more users back to Internet Explorer, with a flow-on effect for Bing, Windows Mobile and the imminent launch of Windows 8 (and, as a result, even more damage to Google and Apple).
Of course, that’s just me being cynical. Maybe the high-minded concerns for privacy given by Microsoft’s Chief Privacy Officer in his blog here are really all that’s in play here!
Now, Microsoft’s opponents have not taken this lying down. Like all scoundrels facing regulation, we’re seeing the freedom of choice card played: the DAA and Mozilla have both been quick to say that Microsoft’s action disrespects the user’s right to choose. Apparently leaving the option turned off by default gives the user a greater right to choose than leaving it on by default. Don’t ask me why! Ask Mozilla’s Chief Privacy Officer Alex Fowler:
DNT allows for a conversation between the person sitting behind the keyboard and the site that they want to visit. If DNT is on by default, it’s not a conversation.
Well, I’m glad Alex cleared that up. On by default: not a conversation. Off by default: somehow a conversation. Got it. The DAA’s spokesman said that they support “consumer choice, not a choice made by one browser or technology vendor.” Once again, this curious view that a default option favouring them is the consumer’s own choice, while a default option that protect’s the consumer’s privacy is NOT the consumer’s own choice.
Anyway, Microsoft’s announcement has thrown the whole Do Not Track project into turmoil. The DAA is talking about reneging on the deal… sorry, accusing Microsoft of reneging on the deal… and suggesting that if DNT is turned on by default then its members will not honour the thing at all. While some tech writers are already suggesting that this may actually be a sneaky tactic to kill the whole thing off, I would suggest that’s a naive view: killing DNT entirely is an open invitation to the FTC and the Department of Commerce to put something more mandatory into place. No, this writer’s view is that the thing makes much more sense as a power play by Microsoft- and one which should end in the DAA having to grudgingly accept browser makers turning on Do Not Track by default, or at least giving users the option to turn it on in a dialogue box the first time they open the browser: a little win for Microsoft, and also for consumers… a sentence that may never before have been written without sarcasm.
Header image via Wikimedia Commons
