This is a follow up bug from bug 628198. During the press tour of Firefox 4, interest in Do Not Track really started to skyrocket. The feature is strongly resonating with users, and is differentiating Firefox in the marketplace. But at the moment, it's also pretty much buried in: Preferences > Advanced > General > Browsing > (last option in a long list) The popularity to obscure UI ratio for DNT is pretty much unprecedented. This bug is to move the option to Preferences > Privacy > (first option) Additionally, this bug makes a few minor changes to the way we describe cookies, since the term "cookie" in isolation is otherwise meaningless: 1st party: "preference cookie" 3rd party: "tracking cookie"

Should this bug be duped to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=630166 or vice versa?

(In reply to comment #0) > > Additionally, this bug makes a few minor changes to the way we describe > cookies, since the term "cookie" in isolation is otherwise meaningless: > > 1st party: "preference cookie" > 3rd party: "tracking cookie" I was hoping that Sid and I had convinced you not to get the DoNotTrack feature wrapped up around the historical baggage of cookies over in the discussion that followed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=628198#c17 Are we still considering something like "Tell websites *and* ad networks that you don't want to be tracked" its most complete, but I agree that that is bit long winded, and maybe needs to be wordsmith'ed some more.

I think we should move the cookie discussion to another bug, since that isn't the main point of this bug. This patch just moves the pref to the privacy pane. Alex's mockup also includes a "How does this work?" link, but I didn't include that because I don't know what page we would want to link that to.

>I think we should move the cookie discussion to another bug, since that isn't >the main point of this bug. yep, another bug is fine. Quick comment on rationale though, goal with the design was to create two sections, one that covers privacy out on the network, and one that covers local privacy on the machine. At the moment cookies are more network level privacy, but they appear amongst local things, like the list of downloads and form autofill.

>"Tell websites *and* ad networks that you don't want to be tracked" users aren't likely to differentiate between web sites and ad networks, so I think short and clear functions better than a longer statement that is more technically comprehensive.

Verified on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:2.2a1pre) Gecko/20110403 Firefox/4.2a1pre The Tracking check box now appears on: Tools > Options > Privacy - first option

here is how press is explaining DNT to users. Something separate from cookies, and different from the google approach. we should try to preserve that idea. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_17796776?nclick_check=1 Maybe change to: "Tell websites *and* advertisers that you don't want to be tracked" I'm pretty sure that users do understand the idea when they visit a site its made of of content they want from the site, and ads that come from other advertising sources. If they can't get to that level of understanding then we should help them to get there.

advertisers are web sites (in the sense that web sites are things that the browser connects to), so I don't see the advantage of providing a more complicated list of various parties that the browser is communicating with. In the lowest level of understanding, users believe that a site like the nytimes.com is itself serving up all of the adds. This interface covers that mental model. In the highest level of understanding, users will understand that a site like the nytimes is contacting third parties that aren't purely add providers (like facebook) with information. If we use an n+1 sentence, this set of users will wonder "sure, but what about n+2, and how you do define "ad provider."" What we want to communicate is "tell *everyone* that I do not want to be tracked."

> What we want to communicate is "tell *everyone* that I do not want to be > tracked." I don't think this is correct. web sites don't know what the advertisers are doing. they hand off snippets for the sites to integrate into the sites. also there are two levels here. tracking within a single site allows "personalization" that has benefits to the user, but the privacy implications are more limited. a single site knows what you do on the site, but that is it. on the other hand, advertisers track your movement across many sites and a bigger chunk of the web. that has different privacy implications and is the rational behind the do not track feature.

>web sites don't know what the advertisers are doing. they hand off snippets >for the sites to integrate into the sites. I believe that the fact that each page contains a mosaic of content collected from different servers is an implementation level concept that is too arcane for mainstream user's comprehension, and as such, also our interface.