here is an idea: why don't we say that do not track shall not relate to marketing-related tracking?

Sometimes stories are just too hilarious to be true, and yet, they are sadly true.

Turns out that during W3C debates on the formation of the Do Not Track standard something of that nature happened, which is a great lesson in how not to lobby. Now, we all know that all the processes in which norms are created or changed, including law making and standards shaping are prone to lobbying and interest-groups activities.

And yet, it is rare to encounter a truly blunt effort, aiming at taking a new standard being discussed and making it pointless, in regards to one of its main objectives. Usually, lobbyists are much more cunning, and seek stealthier methods to empty standards of their impact on their clients business...

But first, to those who are not familiar with the terms:

• W3C is the main international standards organization for the World Wide Web. 
•  Do Not Track (or DNT), is that consumer dream of a web in which  a surfer can choose an option in his web-browser telling web sites and web services whether he wishes to be tracked on his cross-sites movement or he prefers his privacy kept. 

According to a really must-read ZDNET story, a marketers association representative has suggested that marketing would not be considered an activity to which DNT shall be applied. Yup. If this was not a serious report, well documented, I'd be sure this is a hoax or an attempt to present marketing lobbyists as really dumb (Don't follow me? during the debate marketing even received the entire lobbying/selling effort, including the marketing is as American as an Apple pie and the marketing brings jobs claim. Just like a presidential race, only during the joint effort to set a standard).

Don't believe it ? check it out for yourself:

• W3 Issue-178: Marketing should be added to the list of "Permitted Uses for Third Parties and Service Providers" in Section 6.1 of the Tracking Definitions and Compliance Document
• Why the suggestion ? Marketing fuels the world. 
• Why not ? It is not a permitted use because it is the collection of data for the sake of targeted marketing that the user is specifically trying to turn off.

The really sad thing is that sometimes these efforts succeed. Standards get stuck, or abandoned, thanks to really bothersome efforts. 

But what lobbyists do not understand is that their success today might bring the end to the entire business model of their clients tomorrow. 

I can imagine your condescending smiles. Lobbyists, like most lawyers, you think, do not look that far into the future. They are hired to protect the immediate interests of the clients. To that I agree. But the clients should  know better. They should  look at the struggle the Music industry has undertaken, realize the trajectory of that poorly chosen campaign, and form a different effort, remembering that the consumer is their best friend. Had they remembered that, they would also realize that best friends have no problem sharing their information and habits. Preferring to look at consumers like gullible, easy to deceive victims is a strategy that cannot prevail. This Tit shall be Tatted. 

The current generation of net users may not be educated enough to know how to protect itself from tracking. But the next generation will grow up net-savvy. Either that ad blockers shall become a norm, or an even more sophisticated software, creating false user behavior, shall make tracking worthless. And at that day and age, what shall happen to tracking-based-marketing ?