Mozilla Firing the First Shot?

The Washington Post published an article on March 14^th, titled, “Web browsers consider limiting how much they track users” which may be found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/web-browsers-consider-limiting-how-much-they-track-users/2013/03/14/94818d22-8bed-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html. 

The article centered on the tug-of-war that is the “do not track” debate raging between web browsers, consumers, and advertisers. The problem with this debate, however, is that the three main players do not have a unified side of the debate, often leaving all three equally criticized for their action or inaction. 

Take Mozilla. It is a web browser that according to the article is used on up to 20% of desktop computers. The web browser is a non-profit organization that has catered to those internet users with an eye toward smaller, less commercialized search engines. Firefox would disallow third party companies that a user did not voluntarily visit from tracking consumers. For instance, if a consumer went to Firefox Mozilla and typed in the search term, “recipes,” only the sites the user clicked on would be allowed to track the consumer. Another company like Weight Watchers would not be allowed to bootstrap a cookie onto the browsing history of the consumer just because the request for recipes might also mean someone is food-conscious. Weight Watchers could only place their cookie on the consumer if the consumer actually clicked on a recipe from Weight Watchers. A consumer would still be tracked by the legitimate sites they visited; it just would not allow those third parties to track through inference of preference. In essence, Firefox would require consumers to make more affirmative preference choices. 

However, other browser companies, like Google, Yahoo!, and Facebook are less enthused about limiting the tracking abilities of advertisers and third party companies. The article states that these companies “would avoid the kinds of restrictions Firefox is considering because of an exception that allows cookies to be placed by sites users voluntarily visit.” In other words, Firefox stands alone in wanting to limit tracking cookies. Many browsers believe that it is through these tracking cookies that advertisers can best cater to their consumers. Since the advertisers are the life-blood of the internet and provide the browsers with money which can then be turned into free services for the consumer, some of the browser companies believe that not allowing advertisers this access will actually end up doing consumers a disservice. Other browsers companies like, Safari, have already limited third party company tracking on cellular phone internet devices. Microsoft got in major trouble with industry giants when it released its new browser with the default set to “do not track,” a setting that was promptly ignored by advertising networks. 

Consumers are just as wishy-washy. On one hand, consumers that are privacy-conscious, subscribe to the ideology of the Firefox executives, that they would limit their exposure to advertisers if it was easier to and they were given the option. Other consumers though, subscribe to the theology of the Future of Privacy Forum, which states, “It’s fine for tracking to come out into the sunlight and for companies to realize that if all you’re trying to do is sell people stuff, most people are cool with that so long as they believe people are trying to do things for them rather than to them.”

Advertisers are likely the most unified voice. They believe in the value of online tracking and that it is through this tracking that consumers are getting individualized and perfected attention. The Interactive Advertising Bureau tweeted Mozilla, “launched a nuclear first strike against the industry,” which would only set the stage for an arms war in sleuth tracking techniques. Advertisers contend that if browsers and consumers want to change the rules of the game, the advertisers will change their strategy and tactics. The old homage, “This could break the Internet,” has come back to rear its ugly head. They argue that the model consumers have depended on will vanish and have to be replaced by perhaps a less than free service. However, perhaps this is what consumers actually want. Perhaps the market has spoken but it does not fit the expected less common monetary denominator. 

At the end of the article, I was left with four main questions: 1) Who cares about “do not track” if it is just a “do not trespass” sign that advertisers will ignore, 2) Is it expected that a “do not track” restriction on desktop browsers would create a want for them on cellular device browsers, 3) What is digital fingerprinting, and is there a role for the FCC and the courts in limiting these more sophisticated tracking capabilities, 4) Is privacy paying the price for the players’ divergent views and infighting?  Would the debate be more beneficial if the players were separated into more defined opinions/ideologies?