Is "Do Not Track" the Answer to Anything?

There's an interesting conversation going on over at the Search Insider blog about the proposals for "Do Not Track" legislation akin to the "Do Not Call" legislation which at least theoretically reduces the number of junk phone calls we receive. "Do Not Track" would require users to opt-in before marketers and/or publishers could use cookies to track their activities on particular websites. Is "Do Not Track" the answer to privacy concerns?

Aaron Goldman, the Director of Client Strategy and Development for Resolution Media, part of the Omnicom Group, argues - persuasively, I think - that the answer is a flat out "No." As he says, the problem isn't that people are getting too many tracking cookies - their problem is with advertisers showing them too many irrelevant ads. That's a different problem entirely.

In the comments, Tim Walters from Fatwire makes what I think is a key point: "It’s not a matter for Do Not Track, it’s a matter of Do Not Abuse." I think it's clear, though, that marketers are going to have to come up with non-intrusive ways of reaching out to their potential customers - ways those customers are willing to accept, and ways that don't give them the feeling that somebody has been peering over their shoulder.