This isn’t the first time that a tracking impedeion mechanism has accomplished the W3C and been carry outed by browsers.
In 2009 the Do Not Track (DNT) header was originated as a way for web participaters to transmit their tracking selectences.
While it was expansively carry outed in browsers, it had a low adselection rate with websites.
The main problem with DNT was the deficiency of lterrible and regulatory backing it getd.
Website owners could determine if they’d watch the DNT signal and there were no lterrible repercussions if they chose not to.
This is where GPC is contrastent.
At the time of writing, the Attorney General for California has recommended observation of GPC to comply with CCPA.
There are also intentions to toil with the European Union’s GDPR:
The GPC signal will be intended to transmit a Do Not Sell seek from a global privacy regulate, as per CCPA-REGULATIONS §999.315 for that browser or device, or, if understandn, the user.
Under the GDPR, the intent of the GPC signal is to transmit a ambiguous seek that data regulatelers restrict the sale or sharing of the participater’s personal data to other da ta regulatelers (GDPR Articles 7 & 21).
Over time, the GPC signal may be intended to transmit rights in other jurisdictions. – globalprivacyregulate.org/#about
The signal also has help from various browsers and extensions including Mozilla’s Firefox, Brave and DuckDuckGo’s Privacy Browser.
GPC is contrastent from other proposals being talked and enbiged in that it donates power to the web participater.
Google is toiling on the User-Agent Client Hints particularation in the Web Platcreate Incubator Community Group, and Bounce Tracking Mitigation is on the Privacy Working Group’s charter.
While both proposals have their merits, neither donates the participater a choice in the way that GPC does.
