Slashdot Mirror
IE8 Will Contain an Accidental Ad Blocker
JagsLive sends in a Washington Post blog post reflecting on one privacy-enhancing feature of the upcoming Internet Explorer 8, the so-called "InPrivate Blocking" that has privacy advocates quietly cheering, and advertisers seriously worrying. Here is Microsoft's description of the feature. From the Post: "The advertising industry is bracing for trouble from the next version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, details of which were announced today, because it will offer a feature that blocks some ads and other content from third-parties that shows up on Web pages. A Microsoft spokesman said that the feature, to be known as 'InPrivate Blocking,' was never designed to be an ad blocker, though 'there may be ads that get blocked.' Instead, it was designed to stop tracking 'pixels' or pieces of code that could allow third-party sites to track users as they move around the Web."
The two are one and the same.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Anybody that really wants ad blocking can do it now. Most of the people that do want it don't use IE.
All that this changes is control of the ads that are shown in IE. Instead of some 3rd party ad, you will get an ad that is 'blessed' by microsoft (after the advertiser pays a fee to M$).
From Microsoft's decription:
"Have you ever wanted to take your web browsing "off the record"? Perhaps you're using someone else's computer and you don't want them to know which sites you visited. Maybe you need to buy a gift for a loved one without ruining the surprise. Maybe you're at an Internet kiosk and don't want the next person using it to know at which website you bank."
IE8 is supposed to solve all of that? Bullshit.
Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid?
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Get your own accidental ad blocker right now! We will block some of the ads (Google) but our own stay!
Install Firefox, whack in AdBlock , NoScript, and FlashBlock and you have more privacy and security than with IE.
Enjoy Every Sandwich
http://www.privoxy.org/
back in the early days of the web, if a website was 500k in TOTAL is was large. now days chewing 10 megs on a single site is nothing, most of it is ads and very little content. all of this is paid for by us, without our permission. so what if a website is offering free content in exchange for banner hits, they don't ask me if i'd like to be tracked and bombarded with ads for the pleasure of it first do they, in fact i'm pretty sure if websites started placing a front page stating you had to unblock ads and allow 50 doubleclick cookies to be placed not many people would visit them. So cry me a fucking river if they go broke from all the ad blocking.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
This has far reaching implications for all browsers. If you can't track a huge portion of the pie using google/yahoo analytics then it makes no since using 3rd party tracking software. The user in me cheers, the site administrator in me cringes.
This program won't block all ads. It will just block those ads that are geared towards non-Microsoft products! Furthermore, this browser will be smart enough to actually rewrite ads on the fly. So an ad for a Linux cluster will appear as an ad for a cluster running 10,000 licensed copies of Windows Vista Enterprise. I think everyone will be happy about this.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
It's almost as bad as going to the bathroom during commercials when you're watching tv!
words?
Ads are theft too, with all their flash, sound and graphics, it costs more to watch the ads than the content if you're on a pay per byte subscription.
So it's fair to place all kinds of heavy and annoying ads, if people are just free to block those that gets too expensive or annoying. Action equals reaction, it's up to the ad-funded to find a profitable business model, including a sensible advertising policy that does not encourage visitors to block. If visitors block your ads, your product was not worth paying for anyway.
Alright I do know that blockers like ABP simply blocks everything and I gotta admit that may be unfair, but on the other hand, the majority of ads online are excessive, so the ones i feel sorry for are the minority who actually have a sane advertising policy.
If I was as pragmatic and objective as I claim to be, would I be commenting?
But when you read an article about it, it seems perfectly reasonably stuff; 'sandbox' your session against cookie- and form-storage, block annoying trackers - all part of the standard browser ! There's no pretense of 'total security and/or anonymity' here, people, so stop whining.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
I can barely contain the mixed feelings I have over this issue and some of the juvenile responses. Right now I more annoyed with the Linux/Open Source/EFF advocates that can't give a simple acknowledgment to a step forward of the end-users' protection and privacy IE8 may.
One thing I can say before going back to replaying Halo 2 on my now decommissioned Beowulf cluster is, "Good job Microsoft for trying to protect 75+% of the worlds Internet users".
I am personally grateful that the users of our 1000+ Linux, Solaris, BSD server farm are better protected.
Let's remember there is no such thing as a free lunch. Some where, some how, the bill must be paid. Until socialism or communism govern the Internet some level of commercial advertising will need to be tolerated in order to pay the bill in order to keep the "lights and water" running.
--magus
(not to be confused with magu$)
No, it's not. They have the right to advertise, but they don't have the right to force me to look at their ads. I'm still free to ignore them all I want.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
A Microsoft Ad Blocker that only works by accident.
Not everyone wishes to pointblank block adverts but few people want the shady and legally quesitonable tracking techniques some ads used gathering their details, especially those that get around strict cookie rules/settings.
However I find it amusing that people still find ways to bash Microsoft over this. It's a sensible privacy feature. If you want to block ads completely, fine, we all know that firefox can do that amazingly (at least until it's widespread enough for ad providers to start making their clients use an impossible to block local caching system) but this a smart feature for those who don't wish to block ads completely.
There is difference between ad blocking and tracking blocking.
This identifies 3rd party code that keeps track of users browsing habits, and allows the user to reject being tracked.
Google would be hurt by this, as Google is NOT just about displaying ads, but displaying 'contextual' ads that it gets from not only the site content but the user viewing the site, based on the user's browsing history stored at Google.
Check out the Channel9 interview for more information and the intent of this.
http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-8-Beta-2-Privacy-is-about-more-than-cookies/
It would be 'easy' to paint MS as being evil, but in reality, this is a feature that 'exposes' the evil that exists all over the web, from pixel tracking systems to full ad user tracking systems like Google uses.
If Google or other online advertisers wants to display Ads, and not be affected by this, then display Ads and STOP TRACKING USERS along with the Ads.
You don't even need AdBlock if you have NoScript, and using NoScript is much fairer on individual sites.
With scripts disabled totally for a domain, you don't see any ads. If you enable javscript for the domain of the site you're visiting, then you still don't get pop-over ads because they always come from an another domain. This way you get the functionality of the site to work and actually help them out by preventing a third party from messing up the user experience of their site (only for you, but it's a start).
Still, I've no idea why they don't just make static images and count the requests for specific referers, and also count the times that they've been linked through. I still saw ads when they did this kind of thing, though I would've used adblock to kill that damn monkey and anything that made a noise. Nowadays we should have things like per-tab muting and a visual indication of which tab is making sound.
Bravo for Microsoft! The feature doesn't affect honest advertising at all.
Anyone who wants to put up a straightforward ad, presenting information about a product and letting me decide whether I'm interesting in learning more and buying it, can still do so.
This only affects companies who are doing more than just advertising.
The fact that this is being described as an "ad" blocker just shows that advertising practices on the Web have become so debased that writers about the Web simply take it for granted that anything under the guise of advertising is likely to be invested with snooper gadgets that gather information about us without our knowledge.
That's not advertising. That's spying. "Advertising" is just the cover story.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
"'It has the potential to undermine the economies of the Internet,' said Mike Zaneis, vice president of the Interactive Advertising Bureau."
Go kill yourself, you worthless festering sore on society's anus.
The advertising industry could have been responsible from the start, but they chose to incur a backlash of end users who got sick of sneaky tactics like popups and pop-unders. Advertisers who whine that end users no longer tolerate ads make me laugh.
Seriously, choke on your failure and die. You fuck.
This post is clearly just as Funny/Insightful/Redundant as its ancestors.