Slashdot Mirror
IE6 to Implement W3C Privacy Standard
Arthur Phillip Dent writes: "News.com is running a story about IE6 being the first browser to implement the Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) standard. Bad news for Doubleclick et. al., that is unless it's just /.ers using the features! This will get real interesting if lusers' using it with sites that do not post P3P policies (and thereby blocking sites from setting cookies, for example) creates any kind of unrest/discussion about the exchange of marketing data for content and functionality." One thing no one writing about IE6 seems to note: Microsoft has carefully arranged their MSN cookie setting technique to avoid being blocked by their own browser - they bounce people through msn.com to log in to any Microsoft property, so it's always a "first-party" cookie being sent/placed.
Point 7 on http://www.mozilla.org/wishlist-faq.html
Advertisement Blockers
There are various ways you can do this already, and it will probably possible to write a Mozilla plugin to do this. However, this proposal is very badly thought out as it will reduce the revenues that web sites get from advertising, which keep the majority of the web free of charge. Hence it is unlikely this will every appear in Mozilla or Communicator.
This may eventually appear indirectly however, since things such as preventing popup windows and having preferences differ on a site-by-site basis can achieve this (these are above).
In Internet Explorer: 1-Tools/Internet Options/Security 2-Click the "Restricted sites" icon 3-Click the "custom level" button 4-Change your settings, disable javascript, cookies, ect, click OK 5-Use the "Sites..." button to add sites you want these settings to be applied to great for blocking cookies, geocities's annoying scripts, ect ect
The only thing you get to see on their site is a 404. You can't even get to a contact page, much less a text version of the website. Another site is ctvnews.com. They have the standard "this page won't look good under browsers that aren't ie on windows", but the still let you continue on to see the site (which renders fine thankyouverymuch). That's all I ask.
From what I saw of the shockwave site if they did let you view it on a non-ie/win browser you'd see the page, just fine, and two empty squares where the plugin is missing. It's not even that they have their entire page in shockwave or something lame like that.
That's the sort of stuff that just pisses me right off.
I disagree. If part of the HTML standard from the beginning had been that the browser was not allowed to identify itself, then the whole divergence of browsers would not have (possibly) happened, because everyone would be on a level playing field.
This probably wouldn't have stopped microsoft from pulling the carpet out from under netscape, and the suckage of NS from that point forward, but I think that the web would be very different today.
As for pdas, you have a separate page, or have the server have a way to render the page differently for different filenames. For example, if I request foo.html from the server it gives me foo.html, if I request foo.wml from the server it gives me the same page, but does the markup differently (just like CSS can do today) for that page (which is not a real page, more of a mod_perl type of thing, but not).
As for upgrading to mozilla I have, but sites out there still tell me my browser isn't supported. The problem is more to do with web designers using the "opt in" rather than "opt out" mentality. "Allow only ie5 windows" instead of "Don't allow netscape 4.x".
Really? I see it every day, just the other way around:
Generally in the format of something like:
"Netscape 6/mozilla is not supported. Please go [here] to download the latest version of IE"
Or from shockwave (if you go to their site on a non-windows, non-ie browser... the only way to view anything on it is to fake the user agent string to a windows/ie code in konq).
"It appears that your operating system is not supported by shockwave.com. We support the following operating systems: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.0 (or later), and Mac OS 8.1 (or later)."
I have to give kudoes to http://k10k.net/ because they had a "we don't support netscape 6 DCOM just yet, sucks to be you" type message up a while back, but they have apparently re-designed their site.
Why is it that a checkbox in the prefs, that sends back demographics about wanting privacy support, seem a bit odd to me?
The Register's opinion (note that they have DoubleCLick ads on their pages can be read in these two articles:
WinXP IE6 spells death for Doubleclick - and a boost for MSN? and
IE6 will not monster our cookies, says Doubleclick
I want the ability to filter cookies based on the domain they came from. /. cookies - Yes. Doubleclick - No.
I want the ability to filter images based on the domain and/or size (no more 1x1 web bugs).
I want the ability to filter JavaScript based on the domain.
I want the ability to set up my browser so that sites cannot open new browser windows.
Most of all, I want these features built into the borwser. I should not have to download a third party application to control fundamental parts of my web browsing activities.
I normally use iCab on the Mac http://wwwicab.de/but for the past few weeks have had to use IE 5.0/Windows. iCab normally offers all of these filters (and more), and I find the features sorely lacking in IE.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
You see, you don't like Microsoft because they tweak with standards.
However, I am not you. I like some of the stuff Microsoft has done with IE. Microsoft has done some selective implementation of CSS2, for instance, that I find commendable, even. Not buckling as Mozilla did to the W3C's demand that CSS2 compliance means allowing for the page to screw with the widgets appearance (besides color,) for one.
You see? I have a different opinion about browsers. It's informed, but it's different than yours. The problem is, everyone has different opinions. One group isn't in the right, the other in the wrong. Republicans aren't more right than Democrats, they're just more different.
Just like everyone wants everone else's browser to do different things. It's not because you're right and they're wrong. You just have different opinions. If everyone starts banning everyone elses' browser in order to try to force change, the WWW will become an unbrowsable mess. And that would suck.
So, present your ideas in a public forum. Convert all your friends to your browser of choice. Just don't ruin the web for everyone else. That's just being a jerk.
Heh. That's great.
The enemies of Democracy are
How does this fuck with AOL?
How does this benefit MS directly?
Probably the only way to turn it on is to also enable Smart Tags. At least that's my theory.
Please, this post is at most slightly funny. Certainly not funny enough for a score of 5!
Basic browser stuff that [Opera] does better. Opera also has better cookie management.
Microsoft is the first to implement *A* version of P3P. It is not implementing *THE* version of P3P. It's bastardizing it, because that's how Microsoft operates: embrace, extend, extinguish.
The best thing you can do for the web is to BLOCK MSIE v6 for the time being. Send a message to Microsoft that you want them to quit screwing with standards.
There've been net-wide rallies behind common causes before (blue ribbon campaign, f'rinstance). It's time for another one.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Been real boring day so I've come up with these ways to rearrange the letters in "Microsoft Internet Explorer" to spell:
it's for experimenter control
extort, enforce, imprint loser
extreme profits control rein
cern extortion reptile forms
export control terrifies men
cool printer, extreme font sir
Your welcome.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
What was I thinking?
Have I learned nothing in my years of Slashdotting?
At least I managed to close the two windows with which I was about to start raging fires.
I should know enough by now not to even look.
sigh.
You would love some of the scriptlets mentioned in this article over at Roxen Community.
They work fine at least with Netscape 4.X.
I want the ability to set up my browser so that sites cannot open new browser windows.
That's not good enough. It removes too much functionality. What you really need is something like sites can only open a new window in response to a click, and it can only be one new window. Also, the window.close() functionality should be disablable. I don't want anything to happen when I close the window except for the window to close. Nothing ever .
BTW, Konqueror does all the things you asked for except the image filtering by size. You don't seem to run a *nix variant though, so it won't help you for now. You should consider debian on your Mac.
Which way to the topic again?
we will still get blocked from our cookies, because the default setting doesn't allow 3rd party cookies
we don't do anything "bad" with the cookies we collect
Why don't you just stop using cookies then? Really, what nessicary functionality can't you implement on the server side for advertising that you need to use cookies for? You should be able to do all of the standard things. (Keep statistics, don't show people the same ad over and over. Track consumer preferences for targeted ads... The works.) Not only that, but when you store data in a cookie, your data is at the user's mercy. the cookie file can get cleared at any given time. If it's on your server, you have control over it.
If you're clever, you can even keep track of the data on the server when the user's dynamic IP address changes by keeping other information like the user agent string and what "block" of dynamic IPs the address is assigned from. If the user views more then one page from a particular site, you can seed the links with more information collected through javascript that will get sent to you when the user follows a link. Make a little (1x1) flash program that sends you some data. Really all of this cookie nonsense is just that. Nonsense. You can be so much more evil without cookies because the user can't tell you're doing it once they've left the page.
iCab is even better. It shows the cookie, and gives options to:
a) accept it, expire on quit
b) accept it, and any subsequents from the domain
c) accept it, but not allow it to be used
d) refuse it
e) refuse it, and refuse subsequent cookies from the same domain.
It also allows you to change your preferences to either "never ask again" or "always ask" with each alert box.
It doesn't take much surfing to block a LOT of domains this way. I love it, and wish more browsers would implement their cookie management in the same way. It's the best one I've used.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Umm, viewed both in Netscape 6.1PR1 (same as mozilla 0.9.1, not the same as Netscape 6.01) both look perfect to me, execpt the radio buttons are checked, and according to the source, only the first button should be checked, while the reference rendering both are unchecked. But anyways, I'll have to put a bug report out :) thanks
a security hole filled browser implementing privacy enhancements to protect user sercurity. Am i the only one seeing some irony in this? :)
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
If you poke around in the mozilla source tree you _will_ see some p3p stuff contributed by, of all people, IBM...
So yes its in the works.
Anytime you have multiple websites owned by the same company, then you immediately have a condition where that information is assumed to be shared between sites. This is a backend issue unrelated to how browsers or privacy policies work.
I'm mildly amused that the poster seems to regard this as some kind of 'sneaky trick' by microsoft. As if it is 'wrong' to maintain a single login location, as if you 'should' create a separate login for every single website. I've been working on database driven websites for nearly 5 years now, and I can't recall a single technical reason why I'd want to make multiple points of entry to the same database. The only reasons that are valid are design issues... specifically, did we want to have the customer see that login page A is actually affiliated with website B. Microsoft, being such a public brand, has no need to hide the association.
The way I look at it, by having a single login location Microsoft is actually being open and honest. They COULD have multiple points of entry into the login database, one for each site, and thus hide the fact that they are pooling user information between domain names. With a single point of entry, they are revealing their practice of data sharing... something that would be obvious to anyone with technical understanding of database driven sites.
People get all up in arms about privacy with cookies, logins, and user information pages... completely forgetting that sites owned by the same company don't have to use ANY of that to create a profile of your activity on their multiple sites. People seem to have this idea that differing domain names create a magical 'wall' between sites, preventing anything from leaking from one domain to another. Anything they see as breaking that wall is somehow evil.
In all practicality, if Microsoft really wanted to, they could make all their sites as subdomains of microsoft.com... msn.microsoft.com, passport.microsoft.com, msnbc.microsoft.com, etc. Then, the actuality of data sharing would be more concrete for the less technically inclined.
Raven
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
If the user of a web browser wants the ability to block 1x1 transparent images then the idiocy of your paymasters is not a reason for them to be unable to do so.
That's the point, the first person wanted to be able to block these images, the second complained that then as a web page writer they wouldn't be able to force the layout that they wanted. Whining about the dificulties of writing commercial pages is simply irrelevant to someone looking for the features they want in their browser.
Under Windows, you probably want Netscape 6.1 (*not* 6.01, which is *way* too unstable).
You will find NS6.1 to be very privacy friendly (though two of your features are missing: JavaScript per domain and images by size).
It's based on the Mozilla 0.9.1 release which is very nice, and usable on it's own, but adds a number of plug-ins that are worth having.
--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)
One of the biggest mistakes made in designing the Web is probably allowing clients and servers to identify their brands and versions. Then web-site designers would have the fewest headaches only if their pages were actually interoperable.
The server must respond with:
Server: Microsoft-IIS
(or maybe that's IE6.1...)
He is just using the same tactics Microsoft uses to discredit the competition. Actually he is not calling them communists or anti american so he is actually not as bad. Also he is not bribing politicians and taking out advertising in major markets either so I guess he is just a pale shadow of what microsoft is. You can't fault the guy for trying though.
War is necrophilia.
Hmm...what part of the standard does IE not implement? I printed out the HTML 4.01 and CSS 2 specs and kept them next to me as I redid this site. IE (back to at least 4.01) renders it properly, as do Mozilla (last I checked was M16), Opera, and Lynx. The browser that choked was Nutscrape 4, so if you want to complain about a browser not meeting standards, I'd suggest that you go after AOHell and not Microsoft. I checked the site with W3C's validators, and everything came up OK.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Slashdot didn't give P3P such a warm reception the first time around.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
In OmniWeb (Mac OS X only, sorry guys) you can:
.*banners*, .*\.doubleclick\.net, etc.)
1) give a list of regex's to filter. (Mine are
2) set your cookie policy per site (I take slashdot's cookie. All others, I accept and discard when shutting down the browser.)
I haven't used iCab, but I'm told it gives you similar options.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What I wanna know: Is there an msid.msn.com cookie set on boot/install these days?
Next time you install W98, boot to raw DOS. Poke around the filesystem with a hex editor and examine the cookies. You'll find one set for whatever username and workgroup you entered at install time, pointing to our old friend http://msid.msn.com.
Under W98/IE4, deleting these files, rebooting, and re-entering Windows, the cookie data was restored automatically, even though this box had never been connected to any network.
Disclaimer: I wasn't able to reproduce this today on a W98SE/IE5 box. I know I did it under 98, because I ranted about it on Slashdot last year when the GUID-leak stories came out.
Can anyone confirm/deny this type of behavior on XP?
They've been doing this shit for a long time.
A DejaGoogle search revealed tracking through msid.msn.com as far back as 1997.
I think my "cookie kept coming back" had something to do with RegWiz, which created such a cookie before you even registered? (And in my case, even though I hadn't registered :)
So today they generate and use an MSID instead of the HWID. It's still all about tracking.
Speaking for myself, I firewalled msid.msn.com a few years ago and never missed it.
A server has to collect "doubleclick-like" information if it is to, for example, learn how it can sort out which, of a gazillion possible pages that "sort of match" a nonexpert user's request, are really the important ones for that user. Or other users that could use the automatic rating info, donating theirs in return.
I can just imagine the FUD that would be spread if a WWW client sent info back to a server like "Mouse was moved over and things selected on this page such and such an amount, page was in focus X seconds, the screen is at so big a size and Y percent full" et cetra, to help a user get what they are looking for. Again even though this reveals less than what the URL does in the first place - and yet would be invaluable to sift the gems of content from the mass of data out on the internet.
It just can't all be done effectively on the client, or without aggregating the metadata about internet use by many users - the FUD speculation about what mysterious info can somehow be inferred by DoubleClick, and others, goes beyond the stupidity of saying a heart attack victim shouldn't be driven to the hospital because of the danger of an auto accident on the way - to something closer to using as an excuse the fear that the cellphone in a momentarily passing car might risk giving the dying victim brain cancer many yearslater.
On a little different note - why, now, can't you simply select not just one of Microsoft's new "smart tags", but any word or content on a page and with a mouse button selection be able to say "search for stuff like this"? Is it just because it would cause asinine complaints from web page authors (fearing their own page's relative uselessness) that this this violated their copyright by letting someone use the page for what the author rather than the user wanted it used for (and who wanted to pretend this is different than letting someone copy those words and manually enter them into a search engine)?
I'd have to disagree with you. Whether or not I used IE I know enough about privacy, and there are many tools one can use such as JunkBuster to maintain an efficient level of privacy via way of cookies. Some things you should take into consideration are, aside from technology, marketing companies do psychological research on all types of people in order to perform target marketing of products. You see it on television when you watch commercials, e.g. ever see any commercials for black hair care products when Sally Jess Raphael is on? No you're going to see it on BET or when Oprah is on.
This is still a form of privacy violation in a way since someone seems to assume only a selective class of people would watch television. When you go the local stores in urban neighborhoods you can see it via ads as well in which you'd be surprised how many companies perform these tasks via polls, questionaires, etc.
When it comes to the Internet you have to keep in mind no one can see you, and you have every option to decline such things as cookies, or install programs which can act as a bodyguard to protect some site from gaining information on you.
Check out some of my privacy links should these things disturb you, but don't assume any technology can fully impose on someone without their consent whether they consent to it or not.
Want Root?
No, it doesn't. Opera does not support the CSS2 first-child attribute. If you examine the float menu in my tests, you'll see that it has a horizontal line at the top which the reference image does not (because that is the first-child of the menu, which I told it to not display via CSS).
;)
Maybe you need your glasses checked
--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
My welcome?
What welcome?
--
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Here is a
Here is a direct link to the EPIC criticism: http://www.epic.org/reports/prettypoorprivacy.htm
I know its kind of an odd thought, but you could buy the @Guard firewall, which does all of those.
Mark Duell
From the brief reading I've done, they want to see a link in the HTTP header that refers to the location of the privacy policy on the server. This policy needs to be encoded in XML to match a set of tags specified by the W3C spec.
s /q 283/1/85.asp
More technical information can be found here:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P/
No, the bad news is for IE users who think this will block DoubleClick.
The article states DoubleClick expects to be compliant with P3P before IE6 is released, which means IE6's defaults will allow DoubleClick cookies. Doncha think DoubleClick and Microsoft are gonna be talking about such business-model show-stoppers and finding ways to make each other happy? Users will still have to take individual opt-out actions to stop being tracked.
Even so, cookies are not the only way that people can be tracked. Any group of companies could just share apache logs and do some simple Perl analysis to correlate a huge number of visitors. Some factors like NAT and PPP reduce the effectiveness, but the majority of useful data can still be data-mined. Cookies are just the lazy way of doing the same thing, as well as providing stateful visits to the sites themselves.
[
It would be really trivial to implement this plugin for other browsers and web servers. I think that universal plugins is the wave of the fugure, if any company would ever pick it up and run with it. A taskbar icon with a flag indicating protected privacy would be handy even for non-internet users, when using word processors, databases and spreadsheets, to ensure that there are no keyloggers running, for instance. For those browsers without the plugin, a simple checkbox in the "preferences" tab could be added to send back demographic info on the number of users interested in P3P support for their browser.
It was meant as a troll
One day mozilla will even cook your breakfast for you.
You know...basic browser stuff.
Got Rhinos?
If you want complete control over layout, don't use HTML - use TeX.
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
Konqueror does 3 out of 4 of these features. You can choose to accept or reject cookies for none, some or all domains. Same goes for JavaScript and java too.
There's no built in filter for images though. If you wanted that you would have to use an external proxy like Muffin.
Don't suppose this helps much on Windows or MacOS however, unless they've got KDE running on those already.
Illogically, it is more standards compliant. And faster. And smaller. How do the Mac and Windows versions of IE differ? has a good explanation of not only how they differ, but why they differ (directly, yes, they're completely different). IE5/Mac is definitely better than IE5 and, in terms of speed and size at least, Netscape 6. Mozilla might be going more smoothly now, though -- I haven't seen any comparisons of Mozilla 0.9.x to IE5/Mac.
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
As far as I know, Internet Explorer performs better at Standards Conformance tests such as
- Todd Fahrner's Box Acid Test
- Inoshiro's browser test with a screenshot from IE 5 on the Mac courtesy of The Answer is 42
than most other browsers out there. Mozilla and Konquerer are up there as well but they aren't close especially with regards to the newer XML related standards.--
In a startling press release from Redmond, Microsoft has announced that it's corporate web site will incorporate the use of Slashcode.
However, the popular "geek" web site "Slashdot.com" was less than impressed.
In an article authored by Slashdot editor "michael", he writes "Microsoft has no business running Slashcode. We, um, don't like Slashcode anymore." When questioned about this sudden change in position, "michael" responded "If those bastards run it, it must really suck." "michael" then forked the sign of the devil, and foamed at the mouth.
Slashdot editor "Hemos", when asked for further comment, replied "Yawn".
So, it seems that, although Microsoft may make grand steps toward securing their browser software and optimizing their web presence, Slashdot nerds will never, ever, be satisfied.
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
Check the link, dude. Also, I pretty clearly said that IE6 urinates copiously on Mozilla for cookie-handling. IE5 is not as good, but even so, I'm right now (with IE5) staring at an Explorer window showing me cookie name, domain, expiration date, modified date, and last accessed date in sortable columns. So :P
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Microsoft has an article, Privacy in Internet Explorer 6 that should answer your questions.
Namely, even on the "High" security setting, IE6 will accept 3rd-party cookies that have an "acceptable" P3P policy ("acceptable" is defined). If you'd read that document, it looks like they're implementing this rather well. They've made intelligent exceptions (e.g. "Special Provision for Legacy Opt-Out Cookies"), and they're very clear about IE6's behavior.
Now, I don't particularly like P3P, nor do I like feeling that M$ is shoving it down my throat. Is it the best possible solution? Perhaps not, but what else is there?
An earlier linked article at EPIC complains about how difficult most users find changing their cookie preferences and how confusing privacy is. Their solution? A "tools" page with 62 bloody links on it, to proxies, cookie managers, filters, PGP, SSH, anonymizers - most Windows users would have a heart attack just trying to understand the acronyms. That's supposed to be easier?? This is precisely the problem Microsoft is trying to address.
I hate to be an IE apologist, but IE6 kicks the shit out of Mozilla at cookie-handling. This is classic Microsoft strategy: move into a market space that has no standards and leverage their monopoly to say, "From now on, you're doing it our way." I don't like their monopoly powers, but no one else was even doing a half-assed job at this. What's the leading contender to P3P? There isn't one. You can install the something from EPIC's page (as far beyond the reach of most Windows users as recompiling a kernel), but I bet none of these have even 2% market penetration.
The only reason Microsoft could adopt P3P and take over this privacy space so easily is that the rest of the 'net has done such a piss-poor job of it for the last 10 years.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
...on a Microsoft Monopoly Tangent, everyone needs to remember some things.
As soon as someone mentions Microsoft implementing a standard, everyone cries out "M$ has never implemented standards! Thats why I use Netscape!"
Yeah, well Netscape did the same thing to Mosaic. They made their own tags (BLINK!), and only their browser supported it. And yet somehow MS is the only bad guy here. MS is implementing a standard, and IE6 is getting a lot closer to the w3c's standards for HTML & CSS. Which is much more than can be said for Netscape, Mozilla, etc. (Hell, netscape doesn't support ANYTHING anymore!) You don't have to go apeshit on an anti-MS rant just because they are doing something right...
Don't think Doubleclick is going to have much trouble, they helped write the P3P standard.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
No more banner ads for me !! (including slashdot)
So, how do you think Slashdot, as a free site even for cowards as anonymous as you, earns the money to keep itself running?
By selling VA Linux hardware. Banner ads are so 2001.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
A better solution is to have the client send what types of data it prefers, perhaps a "Content-class: simple" as an example. You should send what a client says it wants, not keep a list of clients and what to send them (which leaves you stuck if a new client comes out until you update the database).
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Not having standards hurts interoperability. What if you asked me for directions and I used my own proprietary version of English, in which North and South and left and right are switched? Wouldn't that cause confusion?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
All they are doing is passing people through msn.com first before sending them to any other MS web site. If I had a big organization with 20 different sites, I would do the same thing. It makes sense - you track total usage of your web properties in one place.
Besides, if you don't want cookies, just turn off cookies. If you want to be warned each and every time someone tries to set a cookie on your machine you can do that to and refuse each cookie individually.
This is not that big of a deal. I personally welcome the added security features.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
"I want the ability to filter cookies based on the domain they came from. /. cookies - Yes. Doubleclick - No.
"
Mozilla can do this
"I want the ability to filter images based on the domain and/or size (no more 1x1 web bugs)"
Mozilla can filter based on domain or site.
Mozilla makes it really easy to turn JavaScript off can not do it based on domain that would be a cool wishlist bug I think. And of course 90% of the time turning off Javascript will make popup adds etc go away. Mozilla on a Windows machine can give you much of what you want. In particular if you are like me and don't want the Javascript stuff on most of the time. With the -turbo switch it is every bit as fast as IE 5. Have fun.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
There was an interesting follow up the following day, see here, under the Title "IE6 will not monster our cookies, says Doubleclick"
The gist of the second story:
And there is this tidbitLovely, simply lovely.To get off on arguing about Double click misses the main point entirely. MS is there first with the most money in the next generation of privacy control, via IE6.
Time to play connect the dots.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
My Win32 test included a end-to-end test against the hyped IE 5.X browsers.
The test was performed on a standard 700Mhz Duron with 128MB of RAM running Windows 98SE.My conclusive results are as follows:
LoadingMozilla 0.9.1 loaded 17% faster than IE 5.01 and 21% faster than IE 5.5 using the -turbo option (C:\mozilla\mozilla - turbo)
IE 5.01 and 5.5 loaded 31% faster than Mozilla 0.9.1 when Mozilla was loaded without the -turbo option. This is not a good measure of true performance though - IE loads itself into memory. A better test would be to use Mozilla -turbo vs IE (see above).
Sites90% of sites viewed with Mozilla loaded 100% correctly the first time they were loaded. 5% of the sites test with Mozilla loaded 80% or better when loaded for the first time with Mozilla. 96.2% of sites loaded 100% correctly when refreshed multiple times under Mozilla.
96% of sites viewed with IE 5.5 loaded correctly the first time. 98% of the sites loaded correctly after multiple refreshes.
89% of sites viewed with IE 5.01 loaded correctly the first time. 7% of sites tested did not load properly due to a 128-bit encryption SSL bug in IE 5.01
ReliabilityIE 5.01 crashed the system a total of 2 times. 50% of the time, IE 5.01 took down the system with it, claiming something to the effect of: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe", followed promptly by: "There was an internal error in Explorer.exe". The Task manager and Start Bar dissappeared and the system froze.
IE 5.5 crashed a total of 1 time, claiming: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe". The system stayed up and IE 5.5 was able to restart.
Mozilla did not crash during this test.
ConclusionsIE seems slightly more compatible with most sites, but Mozilla seems faster and more stable at most tasks. Undoubtedly future versions of IE and Mozilla will improve and re-testing will be neccessary.
Cedric Balthazar Rotherwood
Sun Certified Programmer for the Java Platform +
System Admin. for Solaris
I don't know who sold you the line that most people don't care about 3rd party cookies. Except maybe the same person who told you "what they don't know can't hurt them".
I, for one, consistently refuse third party cookies using either IE4.5 on Mac OS or Konqueror under Linux. But this is because I get a little message each time a cookie is sent and I have to choose. The public has only been web browsing seriously for about four years and is generally uneducated about the kinds of databases that are being built from the collected data. But as they become more aware, I think you'll find that no one will want to accept 3rd party cookies-- even those that pass whatever minimum standards MS implements here.
I do not have a signature
The IE 6.0 implementation of P3P, as stated by Microsoft here, is basically unenforceable and IE 6.0 relies on those who are implementing the P3P policies to be honest and forthcoming for what their real privacy policy is. Also, there are several ways around even needing to USE P3P.
The simplest is for someone like DoubleClick or AdForce, or Mediaplex (here on slashdot), to just redirect the cookie data being sent back to their servers, to their clients' sites and have the first party site re-set the cookie so now it is simply first party, but is still globally available.
Then by changing the code which performs cookie operations on the clients' sites, it will then be a first party cookie, and the first party will then generate the call for the banner ad, etc, but with data popluated by the first party instead of cookies set by the third party. Just a tip.
- SuberBug
--SuperBug
Have you actually looked at your second link? It has mozilla showing the reference image of what it should look like and most of IE's renderings seem to have problems. The first link doesn't really show IE outperforming Mozilla either. I'm not saying it doesn't, but your links don't seem to support your statement in particular.
--
Matthijs
One feature I'd love to see on IE6 as far as privacy goes is the ability to easily import and export lists of sites from the "Restricted sites" list. I have all the usual suspects (doubleclick, avenuea, etc) at maximum restrictions meaning no cookies, no scripts, etc.
Quite frankly I'm amazed that these advertising companies haven't been able to buy that functionality out of the IE6.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Microsoft is only ever going to implement standards which it thinks are in it's best interest. You can bet M$ bCentral.com (remember www.linkexchange.com?) will have their P3P policy in place in a hurry if it isn't alredy there...
/.ers, etc.) are unlikely to start trusting in the almighty Bill because of this move. What's the angle here?
To be honest though, the business advantage for Microsoft, of implementing this standard atthis point is still a bit sketchy in my mind...
What do they hope to gain? User trust? Most users blindly trust them anyway, and those who don't (ie:
--CTH
---
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
you see that flag because nobody has changed their site to support p3p yet.
On your site, you put headers like this:
P3P: {url to xml describing your p3p policy}, CP="xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx"
The "CP" part is the compact version, but that is optional.
HTH
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
Yep, this really sucks for third party ad serving companies (like mine). The shitty thing is, it doesn't matter if we implement p3p on our systems or not, we will still get blocked from our cookies, because the default setting doesn't allow 3rd party cookies. (and who in the world is going to relax that?) We (as a industry segment, not just individual companies) have complained to MS about this and their response has been pretty lame. It is really easy for them to redirect their people to their website, but that isn't feasable to everyone else.
I know what some will say, that finially these advertisers are getting what they deserve, and I don't totally disagree, but keep in mind, that (I don't know about other comanines, well, yes I do, but that is totaly someone else) we don't do anything "bad" with the cookies we collect. We don't sell personally identifiable data, etc. We have one of (I don't know of a better one) the best privacy policies in the industry. If everyone just decided that they didn't want 3rd party cookies, that would be one thing, but they haven't, because most people don't mind, as it doesn't hurt anyone. We don't deserve for our business to get impacted this much because of some arbitrary decision made by those people.
Oh, well, enough of this ranting.
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
There was some talk of this earlier in the Mozilla development. The founding father of Mozilla rejected it, since they steer development, and blocking ads is not in thier best interest.
The founding father in this case is,
Netscape Corporation
I'm all for more user-privacy, but I don't see M$'s motive for doing this. How can it benefit them?!
And, by a local cookie do they mean from the same domain as one up in the location bar? My website has several domains, and uses a cgi program that spits our a semi-random image and also sets a cookie. The cgi is always called from one of the domains, so if someone finds the site by typing in another of my domains and the cookie gets set, is that not a local cookie?
-
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
You can probably sue on false advertisiment, or something like that.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
just checking. . .
I think I'll stop here.
While testing IE6, I noticed a 'flag' on the status bar which indicates privacy compliance or privacy non-compliance. I found every site a visited displayed a red flag. How does a site indicate to IE6 browser that it does, indeed, have a privacy policy? For instance, is a certain name required in home directory (like a site icon)?
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Beleive it or not, IE 5 beta for OS X can also handle some cookie filtering on a site-by-site basis.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
That's good, but I wanted to point out that P3P, like almost everything coming out of the privacy space is just smoke and mirrors.
P3P will allow a company to *describe* it's privacy policies versus every element/form/ or page on their site. It's a start, and will be the glue to enable a privacy "UI"'s. What it won't do is provide any means of enforcement. That is, just becasue site "x" says we don't divulge your purchase habits doesn't mean you can trust them.