Where is the Safari 5.0.5 "Do Not Track" setting?

"Do Not Track" setting is only available in Mac OS X Lion with Safari 5.1.

It is not currently available on Safari v5.0.5 in Snow Leopard 10.6.7.

I use Ghostery which is free and effective if you want to have control over blocking which sites are tracking you. You may find it of value too, if you want to get the tracking blocking features before the release of OS X Lion 10.7.😎

edit:typos

mende1 wrote:

"Do Not Track" setting is only available in Mac OS X Lion with Safari 5.1.

And you know this how? AFAIK, Lion has not been released.

Lion is aviable to certain developers (like me) and contains Safari 5.1.

It is only aviable to developers who needs to convert their applications for the new OS.

I believe developers had to agree to an NDA/Confidentiality Agreement? Which appears to have been violated twice in this thread.

good point .. 😝

babowa wrote:

I believe developers had to agree to an NDA/Confidentiality Agreement? Which appears to have been violated twice in this thread.

There has been no NDA violation. It is common knowledge that Apple were to introduce tracking blocking in Safari for Lion, especially if you frequent developers discussion sites.

The Wall Street Journal (not a well-known geek publication) dated 14th April 2011 carried the following story by Nick Wingfield under the sekrit heading;

Apple Adds Do-Not-Track Tool to New Browser

Wall Street Journal Article of 14th April

All New Technology News Article of 14th April - Umar Daraz posted this item reporting on the WSJ article.

Do you seriously think that the Wall Street Journal is going to break an explicit NDA agreement with Apple?

There has been no NDA violation. It is common knowledge that Apple were to introduce tracking blocking in Safari for Lion, especially if you frequent developers discussion sites.

I did not say that the WSJ is in violation - the posters here are. Mentioning features which may (or may not) exist on a not-yet-released OS is a violation. It is either speculation (not allowed here/in violation of the ToU) or in violation of the NDA they agreed to.

babowa wrote:

I did not say that the WSJ is in violation - the posters here are. Mentioning features which may (or may not) exist on a not-yet-released OS is a violation. It is either speculation (not allowed here/in violation of the ToU) or in violation of the NDA they agreed to.

I think you will find that information which is published in a mainstream newspaper is going to present a difficult task for a lawyer who is attempting to claim an NDA violation. The WSJ appears not to be indulging in pure speculation. It has been the case in the past that the WSJ has printed stuff which may well have been privileged information from Apple. By the same token, the buzz created by information that was provided by Apple is also an effective marketing tool.

A developer who had signed an NDA with Apple would, of course, be foolish to publicise information that was provided to them under an NDA. When the whole world and his brother knows what is coming from Apple because of a newspaper article, in advance of the GM version of the software being released and by dint of carefully seeded press releases, it can be demonstrated that Apple benefit from the pre-release buzz created in this manner.

Large numbers of of people waiting around the block... all waiting in line to buy Apple products that are being released that day, is a mute testimony to the success of this viral marketing approach. I guess that were you wanting to be ultra-pedantic, you might claim that giving a version number in these pages here, is an NDA issue. You might also tend to the view that statements about Lion are an NDA issue. We all know that Lion follows Snow Leopard and that the version number will be OS X 10.7.0

I think it is a little harsh to cite NDA violation, given that we all can add a digit to a version number of software, whether we develop for a living or are just innocent watchers of all things Apple. The quote from the OP "I am guessing it may be there somewhere" might well be construed as speculation. I am not sure on what grounds Apple could object to the statement, especially where the person may not be a developer and that part of the cachet attaching to Apple's product line derives from the self-same speculation that is sticking in your craw here.

In terms of commercial sensitivity, all future plans are clearly commercially sensitive for every company that competes in the public market place. Once the newspapers have broadcast information that appears to have been given to them by the Apple corporation, it can hardly be considered to be secret information that is still deemed to be commercially sensitive... can it?

You might also tend to the view that statements about Lion are an NDA issue. We all know that Lion follows Snow Leopard and that the version number will be OS X 10.7.0

Anything that is published by Apple, i.e. on their website is not an NDA issue. However, I have not seen such an announcement about the Safari feature mentioned here, making that a violation.

I've made my point and you have not been able to convince me that yours would be indisputable. But, we are not here to argue legal interpretations. Therefore, I will consider this closed.

The "Do not track" is only a REQUEST that the web site honor the visitors request that they don't use tracking software to monitor their web usage.

Most web sites WON'T honor the visitors request because they get their money from advertising companies who want to collect this data as a revenue source and targeting/profiling.

Google is one of the biggest culprits, even going as far as recording wifi networks while they did street view records.

The FTC has ordered Google to subject itself to 20 years of independent privacy monitoring.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/ftc-puts-google-20-years-privacy-prob ation

So it's pointless to argue about this "Do Not Track" if it's on or not, it's a worthless feature.

It's like asking the robber nicely not to take your wallet. The only effective solution is a user side blockers.

Use Firefox and the following Add-ons: Ad Block Plus, Ghostery, BetterPrivacy, TrackMeNot, Click&Clean and NoScript. Turn off History because Javascript can be used to snff it. Private browsing mode on. NoScript blocks Javascript which the dangerous EverCookie uses to rebuild itself.

With NoScript one surfs the web with everything turned off, if one trusts a site, then clicking the Temp Allow All button turns on the scripts.

Safari doesn't seen to have a plug-in to disable javascript and easily turn it back on. It has to be done manually in Preferences, a real pain.

iOS users are SOL due to their devices being closed.

The aforementioned privacy extensions are all recommended. As well as a System Preference Pane called Glimmer Blocker.

However you can easily disable JavaScript from the Developer Menu in Safari. **** you can even assign it a custom keystroke if you want. You can likewise disable several other settings that can be helpful and keep you somewhat less easier to track on the web.

HTH

zac

Thanks for sharing that Zac.

Nothing is really private on the net, ISP's record everything, web sites your IP address and times of visit, cell carriers take your GPS coordinates via cell phone tower trianglulation 8 times a hour, etc.

The difference is one is providing a needed service and the others are **** bent on profiling and data-mining everyone.

One side your protected by court ordering of records, the other one is not.

Just like in the military, they don't have a "need to know" 🙂

Oh, if your really want to block things you can add a block list to your Hosts file.

1: Download the free Text Wrangler

2: Copy the entire text of this web page:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt

3: Paste into Text Edit

4: Remove line: (important!!)

127.0.0.1 localhost

5: Use Find and Replace change all instances of

127.0.0.1 to 0.0.0.0

6: Save the file onto your desktop for now, any name will do. Leave file open in Text Edit.

7: Launch Text Wrangler and File Open By Name: /etc/hosts

8: Touch nothing you see there (very important)

9: Text Edit and Select all/copy

10: Text Wrangler, mouse to the bottom of the file (add some returns) and click paste.

11: Save the Text Wrangler /etc/hosts file, it will ask for your Admin password.

That's it. you just added a computer level block to all the current malicious sites on the Internet, along with ads, trackers and other nasty business.

All you have to do is update that portion of the /etc/hosts file every few months using the same methods above without deleting the original /etc/hosts file contents.

You shoudl save a copy of the original /etc/hosts file just in case you delete it by accident.

If you want to block any site on the Internet, just add a line and (example, like so) 0.0.0.0 www.facebook.com

If you want to unblock a site just put a # symbol in front of any line for the comptuer to "ignore this line"

What this does is resolves the domain name for certain malicious/ad sites before it asks your Domain Name Server for the correct IP of these sites.

Because you use 0.0.0.0 it's "nothing" and the site fails to load.

Note: All responsiblity is yours if you screw things up or have any problem using this method to block sites.

babowa wrote:

Therefore, I will consider this closed.

😕

OK.