Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft and Online Privacy??!!

Posted by michael on from the I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it dept.

codeguru writes "This has to be a paradox. IE has a new feature, the first time from a Browser manufacturer, that implements user privacy. The story is available on wired.com. 'The additions for Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser will describe cookies to the user and differentiate between first- and third-party cookies, Microsoft said. The browser will then let the user refuse third-party cookies.'." The browser manufacturers have had many chances to include privacy features, and rejected them. I'll believe this one when I see it.

14 comments

  1. Mozilla also has this by Drakino · · Score: 2

    Looking at M16, this is implemented into Mozilla as well. All it really is is just a setting that will only send and recieve cookies to the URL you typed. Mozilla also has the ability to ban specific sites from sending the browser cookies, useful for when a list of ad banner servers is obtained.

    1. Re:Mozilla also has this by Municipa · · Score: 1

      It would be nice to have a cookie browser that lists the issueing site, the time of the last change to the cookie, sites that have accessed it, sites that have attemped to access it and failed, and maybe even a history of changes to the cookie.

    2. Re:Mozilla also has this by sdo1 · · Score: 1

      I've been trying to keep on top of advertisting sites and adding them to the "restricted sites" list in IE. Is there a nice list of sites anywhere that should be blocked to minimize tracking? Sites like... *.doubleclick.net *.admaximize.com *.adsmart.com *.aureate.com *.avenuea.com *.engageaudience.net etc... Obviously I could block all cookies, but some are indeed useful.

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
  2. BFD by Alik · · Score: 2

    Yes, it's a step up from the current "Allow all/deny all/ask all" model, but IMHO, this is still useless. I may not want to reject all third-party cookies, just most of them. Sure, there's the Trusted Sites zone, but I don't consider any website worthy of the label "Trusted".

    This is still very coarse-grained control. I can do a million times better than this with my nice little Junkbuster and get rid of banner ads while I'm at it. I don't see this change as really doing very much for privacy protection compared to existing free software. Sure, it's a nice gesture from MS, but I think that's all it is --- throwing us a bone so they can say "See? We're very concerned about privacy. Ignore that digital watermark we attached to all your Office documents."

    1. Re:BFD by Alik · · Score: 1

      Well, I was exaggerating for rhetorical effect. I've never checked to see exactly how restrictive my settings could get (then again, I've got most of that stuff turned off anyway).

    2. Re:BFD by Alik · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know that "Trusted" sites could actually not be allowed to display anything beyond plain text, and you know that, but most ordinary users don't know that (IMHO).

      I recognize that my failure to use my IE zones is probably a bit of silliness on my part, but in the end it doesn't matter; once you've got a Junkbuster running, you don't need the zones. That thing has massively improved my web experience.

  3. Urgent News Flash... by Brazilian+Geek · · Score: 2

    It is snowing in Hell! I repeat, it is snowing in hell! Hell has frozen over! Satan and Saddam have been seen looking for blankets...

    Seriously - that must be "A Good Thing"(tm).... BUT... we can't forget that we _are_ talking about Microsoft - the makers of MS Bob and Clippy the Paperclip from Hell...

    That's all, my conspiracy theory for the day... :)

    --
    All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
    1. Re:Urgent News Flash... by technos · · Score: 2

      Wasn't Melinda the lead on the Microsoft Bob project??

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
  4. Re:This is (finally) some good news by Louis_Wu · · Score: 1
    Maybe others will take this as a cue to make user privacy a higher priority. And maybe pigs will fly.

    I'm not expecting the worst (I do occasionally plan for it), but I don't expect businesses to forgoe guaranteed profits for "user comfort" which isn't guaranteed and for which there is no proven business model.

    The people I have known at college who were in the business majors weren't the most trusting, generous, 'What do the people want?' types. Not evil, just more concentrated on making money from a service than in making that service the best it could be.

    If there were a demonstrated, proven way to make money without ad-tracking, to make more money than with ad-tracking, there would be fewer ad-trackers.

    Louis Wu

    "Where do you want to go ...

  5. How is this different... by Anonymous+Covard · · Score: 2

    From Netscape Navigator's option to "Accept only cookies that get sent back to the originating server"?

    --
    Information wants to be free -- but informants want to be paid.
    1. Re:How is this different... by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      "Want to end freedom on the Internet in the U.S.? Remember, a vote for Nader is a vote for Dubya!"

      A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil! Demand change!

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
  6. This is (finally) some good news by Cyberbabe · · Score: 1
    This link deals more the the potential abuses that happen with the current scheme of allowing third party cookies through. It's scary to think that just by having a picture on a web page, the time you spend on each page, what you did while you were on a site, and what sites you have visited can all be sent back to a centralized database to be mined for relevant data about you.

    Combine this with some of the other available snooping tools and technologies, such (Echelon, C arnivore, etc..) and there are IS no privacy on the net.

    Throw ICANN into the mix and see how they are "protecting" the internet, and it makes me very glad the Microsoft, regardless of the disagreements I have from them, is proactively making it possible for users to protect themselves from these abuses.

    --
    -- Periodically spray diskettes with insecticide to prevent system bugs from spreading.
  7. Microsoft's idea of privacy by Lordfeff · · Score: 1

    For those of us who have used that hell spawn of a company's products, we all know that Microsoft is incapable of providing true choices for the user. This means that you will choose not to accept a cookie and good old IE will choose the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you chose because it knows what you really want.

    Seriously though, call me old fashioned, but I don't think Microsoft is ready for a real responsibility like security. In fact, I wish they would work on fixing all of their stupid bugs and coming out with something reliable before adding new 'features'

    --
    We're all a bunch of glorified monkeys.
  8. Opera can do this already. by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 1

    Opera has not only the ability to block third party cookies and describe the nature of incoming cookies, but it can also block by server, and it makes a distinction between "allow cookies from all servers" and "don't allow third party"- you can set them both at the same time. Thus, the properties of each cookie transaction are far more controlled than what this IE extension will offer.

    And oh yeah, you can block referrer logging and automatic redirection... and new browser windows can be banished to an MDI taskbar without ever appearing to block your view!

    --Perianwyr Stormcrow

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey