IE 5.5 Tracking Default Bookmarks

Paul Guinnessy writes: "Has anyone else noticed that the default bookmarks in Microsoft Explorer 5.5 do not go directly to a site such as cnn.com, but instead go via a redirection via Microsoft. I'm just a bit curious (and a bit uncomfortable) to know what they will gain in gathering this sort of personal information. " There's been a lot of slimey stuff with browsers (remember the What's Related problems not so long ago?). I guess I'm glad Mozilla is coming of age. As long as Web sites don't start doing something stupid like requiring IE... oh... wait.

Comments

Re:Let's all do this:

[dattaway]

If you want to rig the tally counter:

watch wget http://www.microsoft.com/isapi/redir.dll?prd=linux &target=http://www.slashdot.org

this makes a request to microsoft every two seconds. It doesn't do the redirection, but just makes the request from microsoft's site.

Um, aren't we a little hasty?

[XNormal]

Netscape is doing the same, and it's not exactly new either: this feature is there since version 4.0 (1998?). The default bookmarks in the Personal Toolbar Folder redirect through Netscape's site.

The redirection URL is http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/(version)/(bookm arkname).html

Take a look at http://home.netscape.com/bookmark/ to see all supported versions.


----

There may be an innocent reason

[dsplat]

The URLs that they are forwarding to are subject to change under the control of other companies. Microsoft certainly may be tracking usage. However, they may have also been building in the flexibility to change the URL without having to update the client software.

Let's all do this:

[Black Perl]

I'm going to change my slashdot bookmark to
h ttp://www.microsoft.com/isapi/redir.dll?prd=linux& target=http://www.slashdot.org

and if we all do the same, it'll really throw the Microsoft statistics gatherers. "This month we got 34,432 redirections for the Windows page and 485,550 redirections in a category of 'linux'".

Re:I find it disturbing that....

[guran]

someone would even consider using a non-open source browser -- especially one that is made by the evil empire. You should be using some open source browser, or better yet, write your own from scratch.

I'd love to. unfortunately I lack time and skill to code my own browser (if I want something more than text, at least)

But the sad state of affairs is that INTERNET EXPLORER CURRENTLY IS THE ONLY BROWSER THAT FUCKING WORKS!

Don't tell me about standards and how the evil empire embraces and extends. I'm talking reality here. So many sites uses MS specific code that I'll always need IE as a backup. I do web pages for a living. (or rather the heavy stuff behind the pages, not the stupid html/javascript shit) and I see why Microsoft is winning. It is easy. They give people what they want!

People want "cool" sites. I know it is stupid, and so do you, but the other 99% of the web surfers think those flash intros and AciveX gizmos are nice. If a page renders and updates faster in IE than netscape, people will use IE. If a page is inaccessible with Lynx, nobody will use Lynx (exept hard core geeks and disabled persons) If people get a virus because of shitty security in IE and windows they will complain about "that damned Gates" and continue to use Windows and IE because they work. Someone will switch to Linux only to find that his favorite web site no longer works. (and that Netscape crashed three times) "Sorry, Linus. Nice system and all, but I'll stick to windows, since they have this working web browser."

I'm worried, because if there is not a serious competitor to MSIE out there soon we will have a MS proprietary web.

Boy, am I pessimistic today?

WARNING! slashdot banner ads redirect you!!

[levendis]

check this out:

http://images.slashdot.org/cgi-bin/adlog.pl?arti cle,tkgk0081en

This is a link from a /. banner ad, and it redirects you to another site! Oh my god! Evil Andover is tracking my browsing!

Sorry, just feeling a bit paranoid this morning... web redirects are nothing new. They can be used for a variety of legitimate features such as load balancing, randomizing, hit tracking, etc etc. Why is it inherently evil when Microsoft does it?

Re:I find it disturbing that....

[guran]

Here is a typical conversation between a web site developer and a customer:

Customer: I want a site that looks something like this, and I want these functions on it
Developer: OK That will cost XX $ for IE users.
Customer: Uhm OK
Developer: ...and YYY $ extra to get it to work with Netscape
Customer: YYY $ extra? Why?
Developer: Well, IE and NS have some different features. Those functions you described are easier to make for IE
Customer: OK I guess you know what you are talking about. I assume we must support Netscape too
Developer: And then there are some other browsers. If you want them supported you must cut back on functionality, or make a parallell low-feature site.
Customer: an extra site just in case someone doesn't use IE or Netscape?
Developer: Yes to catch everybody
Customer: Guess I don't want to lose any customers. How much would that be?
Developer: ZZ $
Customer: ZZ $? How many are using omething else than the major two browsers?
Developer: Less than one percent of your target group, I'd say
Customer: OK here is the deal. Start making my site for IE users. Then you can add functionality for Netscape (if they are still around then). I don't think we'll bother with the rest.
Developer: Are you sure? It might not look so good if some people can't even access your site.
Customer: Yeah, but it would cost too much. And most people does have IE somewhere if they really want to get here don't they?
Developer: Yes. Lynx and Opera users are used to being shut out. They may complain, but they'll know how to get aroud the problem.