I think the committee is going to want people who are more technically profound than I am to answer this question. “Do not track” is a service that would be in a browser, which would prevent the lodging of cookies in your computer. Currently, when you identify yourself and you indicate your language of choice, and other things that you want the service to know, it will register that and lodge a cookie in your computer so that every time it comes to you, it says, “Oh yes, this is algorithm such-and-such, and these are the preferences.”
There can be a whole series of things that are pre-approved. “Do not track” would block the registering of cookies, so you would be a fresh face every time the website was opened or the service came to you, if it was a social service.
The different offerings are looking at that differently. I believe that one of the biggest recently announced that they would register that as a default setting, and a consumer would have to disable it in order to receive cookies that might facilitate transactions. Another big operator is currently indicating that they're not certain they want to do that, because they think the consumer prefers to have more facilitated service. So it's a really interesting debate.
To your point, there's a reason these companies are doing it and states are not ordering them to do it, and that has to do with the sensitivities around privacy. It's a healthy discussion to be having, and it's nice that they can invent a technology like this.
I'm not necessarily as concerned about it. I read the consent provisions carefully, so that's my defence.