Slashdot Mirror
Playing Around With Tracking Protection In IE9
Roberto123 writes "I have tried out the Tracking Protection feature in the coming Internet Explorer 9 browser from Microsoft. While the feature does effectively block ads from Web sites, I'm not yet convinced that giving the users the options to select content to 'Block' or 'Allow' will be that effective."
I don't give a shit what you think. #firstpost
Getting rid off all the crappy and misleading ads is a plus for IE 9. TFA was vague if it was turned on as default or not. Even if people will have to turn it on, they might realize the benefits.
Begin the Microsoft bashing for giving users more options that resemble functionality available in Firefox (with addons)!
Go back to old-school HTML. No Java, no scripts, no BS.
When you can run Firefox with Adblock Plus and NoScript, why would anyone care about IE in the first place? Who even uses IE in this day and age, and why?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
As someone who has worked in call centre tech support, may I be among the first to say that this will be yet another 'feature' that bored children will mess with to break their web browser. While activating Tracking Protection will probably be relatively easy, no doubt the button to reset this feature to defaults (and remove any blacklisting) will be hidden seven layers deep in complex "Options" dialogs.
An nodoubt it will have a backdoor to allow tracking by Bing
Nice, another copy job from M$. And the TFA (which I did read), really shows that the author never used AdBlock before. M$ actually didn't do anything bad now, don't tell that I troll against them. As a side note, if Microsoft implements AdBlock, and enables it for everyone, the the ad industry will find a ways to override it. (They don't bother yet, since usually only smart peoples use Firefox, and thus they are less likely to fall into their traps, and thus AdBlock even benefits them by saving their bandwidth). I have even seen few sites that detect firefox's AdBlock, and complain about it, like this one
The Daily Hip Hop is the best new website offering hip hop fans the top hip hop songs, hot hip hop artists, new hip hop videos and hip hop news. Listen to hot hip hop music.
Hip hop is a form of musical expression and artistic culture that originated in African-American South Bronx community during the late 1970s in New York City. Jamaican born DJ Clive "Kool Herc" Campbell is credited as being highly influential in the pioneering stage of hip hop music. Hip hop music is now global with hot hip hop artists from nearly every country. According to the U.S. Department of State, hip hop is "now the center of a mega music and fashion industry around the world," that crosses social barriers and cuts across racial lines
Being cynical, I would say that the default list of "Trusted providers" = Microsoft partners and Google is out. Good thing nowadays we have some choice in browser selection. Microsoft can be its own ecosystem until it is a paramecium in some pond somewhere. Like a previous poster said: why use Microsoft IE9 nowadays when there is Chrome for Mac, Linux and Windows as well as Firefox for most other platforms out there? Cue Microsoft trolls: "This looks like a great thing from Microsoft, you know you don't have to use it". "I was a sceptic at first, but the more I look at this new feature, the most it seems it will help computing platforms everywhere" "No that is not true...this is an add on like an extension for Firefox"...
If Microsoft suddenly get good ad blocking - as in, really good ad blocking, they could completely cut off all oxygen from Google. Of course, MS also makes some money from web advertising, but they don't need it to live like Google does. Also, it really would improve the quality of the user experience in IE if this were done well and thoroughly.
Please download Chrome to continue viewing the site (with ads).
However, it would be trivial to make sites unusable unless advertisements are enabled. This is where all of the ad blocking is leading to I think.
The ability to block or allow specific web content was in a little-known product called AtGuard by WRQ ten years ago. It was pretty awesome. If IE 9 is anything like it, everybody will be using it.
It's really not about if the option will be effective. Its really about the user and level of competency with computers that despite the years of integration of tech, maybe users are a FAIL.
--- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
Can you actually formulate a sentence? Learn how to fucking spell you idiot.
It'll be Microsoft's less effective version of AdBlock Plus and NoScript?
Anyone got a light for my sig?
> While the feature does effectively block ads from Web sites,
> I'm not yet convinced
Translation: It's Microsoft, so I have to find fault with it!
You just sound stupid.
That would imply that somehow MS had managed to string two lines of code together.
Any browser maker could stop their browser from requesting content not served from the URL in the address bar.
The question you should ponder is why this hasn't happened at all in the last 15 years.
Could it be that there is just far too much vested interest by ALL the major browser 'manufacturers'?
As consumers, we don't really want that. That will lead to : "Gmail can no longer be offered free from [some date about a 3 months from now that is long enough to give time to move in theory, but not practically]. Our usage data tracks that Gmail is used for about 80% of time that you run Windows. Accordingly the license price is 150 Euro. Upgrades cost more".
Oh dear....
Ad tracking reminds me of scanning a printout. It is suboptimal and error-prone.
Because dogs have a hard time sniffing explosives such as Semtex, the manufacturers are legally bound to inject a chemical in the explosive so the dogs can detect them. I know the internets cannot be tamed like explosive manufacturers, but if some ad tagging standard was published by the W3C or some other organization, real, efficient, cross-platform ad-blocking could happen.
Until then, ad tracking is an amazing field for data-mining enthusiasts, but not much more.
lucm, indeed.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
If Microsoft suddenly get good ad blocking - as in, really good ad blocking, they could completely cut off all oxygen from Google. Of course, MS also makes some money from web advertising, but they don't need it to live like Google does. Also, it really would improve the quality of the user experience in IE if this were done well and thoroughly.
Problem being that, in doing so, they would cut off oxygen to every site on the internet that uses ads for revenue (probably some massive percentage).
That's what bother me about ad blocking. As the owner of a small site that will be paid for by ad revenue (because I'm broke), I see this as an extremely bad thing. Maybe good from a consumer perspective, but bad from any other.
And as someone else said, it's possible many website owners would just tell anyone using IE w/ ad blocking to either jump off a cliff or switch to, say, Chrome.
But its not about having good ad blocking, its about having OK ad blocking so they can advertise they have ad blocking.
If it is a nuclear option, then I better be hangin' with my ohmies.
Linux users run Firefox because they are so smart, Mac users run Safari because they are brainwashed, Windows users still run IE6 since their IT department won't let them upgrade, and there's that guy who runs Opera.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
No ads = less diverse content. There will be unintended consequences. If one person blocks ads then they're just a free-rider. If everyone does, the web will really suck. Sure, some sweet folks will continue to post hobby sites, just as in the golden days of yore. And non-profits will publish. And big corporate sales and propaganda sites. And the Government and lobbyists. (BTW: They're all selling you something, aren't they?) But most of what makes the web diverse and useful and free today will die if advertising is eliminated. You don't have to click, just like you don't have to listen or look at ads in conventional free media. I'm sure that is seen as a victory for some, but not me. Almost all the cool, independent sites will wither. Maybe a few rich kids can keep BoingBoing alive, but... What may happen is what I would do with my ad supported but still public-serving sites. Block the ads that enable me to give you content: No access to the site. You'll never know what you're missing.
"Knowing everything doesn't help..."
Whiiiiiiich is exactly why I use chrome.
Switch to Chrome and install adblock, just as I did? ;)
You don't know what you don't know.
>>If Microsoft suddenly get good ad blocking - as in, really good ad blocking, they could completely cut off all oxygen from Google.
You do realize that "tracking protection" (what TFA is about) and "ad blocking" are two different things, right?
It is entirely possible to block tracking without blocking ads, and vice versa.
In Firefox terms, it is the difference between Ghostery and AdBlock Plus.
All this fucktisement stress wouldn't be important to the point where the user makes ad-blocking #1(or in the top 3) on their priority list of browser choices if web developers didn't cluster fuck their websites will ads on every corner/side in the most annoying pop-up/on-top/sliding advertisement bars with sound or distracting color flashing movements.
Even the video player now has fking built in advertisement bars! As if the page itself on top, left, right, bottom, inside and between wasn't enough...insane if they think people will buy a product because they recognised it from some annoying website like that.
Web developers would likely get more page hits or ad hits if they didn't choose for such massivly nagging and hated advertisement techniques.
If Microsoft suddenly get good ad blocking - as in, really good ad blocking, they could completely cut off all oxygen from Google. Of course, MS also makes some money from web advertising, but they don't need it to live like Google does. Also, it really would improve the quality of the user experience in IE if this were done well and thoroughly.
Google would just get really good at detecting Ad blocking and refuse to serve search results and other content if you block their ads.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Is IE 9 avaible? right now?
Yes.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Since it is now in all major browsers, I wonder how the idiots running the "why firefox is blocked" campaign are going to react. Maybe they will now block the internet.
I think even that would be a happy compromise for those sites - after all it's the current position and it seems to work (besides, people who hate ads enough to jump through the additional hoops probably wouldn't buy anyway). What isn't in anyone's interests is for the major browser to block all ads by default - I say this as someone who has had adblock installed almost from day one but rarely uses it. I don't mind site owners getting paid based on my viewing their content but it's also nice to know I have a fallback if I ever come across an ad that abuses its position. This move will more likely either mean much more pervasive advertising across the board with measures to prevent blocking or everything moves to a subscription model (and a lot of niche interest sites die out through lack of financial support).
I totally agree - this move is a direct attack on Google. This was my first thought when I read the article title - When is MS going to use their b(tr)illions to make a good product without resorting to half-assed copying and underhanded moves?
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
"If one person blocks ads then they're just a free-rider." - by Invisible Now (525401) on Monday February 28, @01:41AM (#35335760)
First of all: NOBODY RIDES FOR FREE online, nobody. You're paying for online time to your ISP/BSP, & that is enough as is!
I.E.-> I am not additionally going to allow something that impedes superior performance or security online to invade my time, or annoy me...
---
"No ads = less diverse content." - by Invisible Now (525401) on Monday February 28, @01:41AM (#35335760)
See my p.s. below, as to "LESS DIVERSE CONTENT" (content, such as malicious script in adbanners, & slowing us down to all hell too for online time WE PAY FOR OUT OF OUR OWN POCKETS... &, for what? So someone can infest us with malware, slowness, and to pay for THEIR lives?? No thank you!)
---
"There will be unintended consequences." - by Invisible Now (525401) on Monday February 28, @01:41AM (#35335760)
Yes, like a user gains MORE SPEED by not downloading & processing adbanner content, as well as less chance of malware infestations too!
(I'll take it, for blocking adbanners - after all, it's MY ONLINE TIME I PAY FOR OUT OF MY OWN POCKET is why... & I want ALL of what I pay for, not just some, not 1/2... ALL!)
---
"If everyone does, the web will really suck." - by Invisible Now (525401) on Monday February 28, @01:41AM (#35335760)
Oh, really? Perhaps the QUALITY of the web will actually go UP because only the strong sites will remain?? Have you considered THAT much???
---
"Sure, some sweet folks will continue to post hobby sites, just as in the golden days of yore. And non-profits will publish. And big corporate sales and propaganda sites. And the Government and lobbyists. (BTW: They're all selling you something, aren't they?) " - by Invisible Now (525401) on Monday February 28, @01:41AM (#35335760)
Well, there you are then, you said it yourself: IF someone's serious OR passionate about what they're into, & want to put it online?? Nothing will stop them really...
---
"But most of what makes the web diverse and useful and free today will die if advertising is eliminated." - by Invisible Now (525401) on Monday February 28, @01:41AM (#35335760)
It hasn't died yet, and many, Many, MANY 1,000's of folks block out adbanners for more speed and yes, more security online... period!
(Or have you never heard of things like browser addons such as Adblock, or even HOSTS files, for those very purposes? I haven't seen the "web die" yet, & those tools have been around, for AGES!)
---
"You don't have to click, just like you don't have to listen or look at ads in conventional free media. " - by Invisible Now (525401) on Monday February 28, @01:41AM (#35335760)
You're right - I don't. I never see them in the 1st place, due to layered security of using HOSTS files here (covers ALL webbound apps) & AdBlock in FF for example (or FF's own INTERNAL lists for this), or Opera's native urlfilter.ini/filter.ini, or IE9's new "do not track" feature too!
---
"I'm sure that is seen as a victory for some, but not me." - by Invisible Now (525401) on Monday February 28, @01:41AM (#35335760)
Oh, of COURSE NOT from you: Your ENTIRE POST sounds as if it comes from the viewpoint/perspective of a disgruntled webmaster whose site is experiencing less revenue... well TOO BAD: You came into this "eyes wide shut" then - this IS the nature of things in business: Things, change! You either adapt, or die.
---
"Almost all the cool, independent sites will wither." - by Invisible Now (525401) on Monday February 28, @01:41AM (#35335760)
Funny, but
Top off the list of malicious hacks & slowdowns adbanners expose folks online to I posted @ the termination of my init. post here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2014770&cid=35337228 :
---
London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:
http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware
---
"HOT OFF THE PRESSES", today...
APK
P.S.=> The "penguins" won't like this either, because not only did the London Stock Exchange FLOP after only 2 days on the job using Linux, but... it appears that it's been "hacked/cracked" also (via malicious adbanners being inserted & served up to the general public as well)... apk
Is there any irony in a site with an article about tracking-protection having (according to Ghostery) 10 trackers?
Can any web-masters on /. explain why some sites (especially "magazine" sites) have so damn many trackers? How many ad-networks do you subscribe to?
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Yes let's ban all ads, then a lot of people won't be able to put anything up because they can't afford the bandwidth costs. They of course could recoup those costs with a paywall, but people like you wouldn't pay it because of your entitlement.
"They of course could recoup those costs with a paywall, but people like you wouldn't pay it because of your entitlement." - by Merk42 (1906718) on Monday February 28, @10:07AM (#35337862)
Seems to ME that both advertisers AND WEBMASTERS have the sense of "entitlement" here, not users... after all - you're the one making it sound as if adbanners are "mandatory" & they are CLEARLY not...
Lastly/Once more - People already PAY ENOUGH ALREADY just to be online, but they do NOT PAY TO KEEP SOME WEBMASTER or ADVERTISER there! )
(OR, is the list in my p.s. below not worth avoiding for the end-user??)
BOTTOM-LINE HERE, is THIS, for the "end-user", by blocking out adbanners:
More speed, more security, & a less annoying web-surfing experience (just by blocking-out adbanners alone!)... AND, getting ALL OF WHAT YOU PAY FOR, speed-wise too!
"Beat that with a stick"
---
"Yes let's ban all ads, then a lot of people won't be able to put anything up because they can't afford the bandwidth costs." - by Merk42 (1906718) on Monday February 28, @10:07AM (#35337862)
Then, as I said above? ONLY THE STRONG (or determined & passionate/sincere about their love of a particular topic they start a website on) WILL SURVIVE... period!
("Welcome to the Jungle", in other words, & "The Times they are a changin'"!)
APK
P.S.=> Again, for your reference (w/ a NEW one I just added, showing the London Stock Exchange serving up malware via adbanners, today, "hot off the presses"):
---
Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/
---
Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge
---
Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware
---
Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick
---
Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/
---
Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:
http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml
---
Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml
---
Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware
---
ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB:
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218
---
THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus
---
NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER:
Title makes it sound like it's talking about preventing tracking, whereas the text is more about ad blocking. If it were about preventing tracking, you wouldn't expect to see fewer ads; you'd just expect the ads to be more generic. An ad server, instead of deciding, "This client was browsing midget porn sites recently, so let's show the $8 CPM targeted midget porn ad on this Phoronix page about AMD," would decide, "We don't know who this is, so just show 'em the $0.80 CPM remnant."
Begun, the Browser-Ad-Blocking Wars has.
I hope so. I'm suprised it hasnt already happen long time ago.
PeerBlock is also your friend.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Total 285,460
Average Per Day 21
Average Visit Length 0:34
Last Hour 1
Today 17
This Week 140
Twinstiq, game news
See subject-line, & this:
"Switch sides. Your stupidity and incompetence make you staunchly PRO-ads." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, @12:37PM (#35339526)
IF that's the "best you've got", trying to be "clever" on YOUR part? Please... it's invalid in logical debate!
APK
P.S.=> And, your ad hominem attacks on myself? Well... it certainly isn't disproving my points here in this exchange as to WHY folks block ads (more speed, more security, etc. by doing so, & FOLKS PAY FOR THEIR ONLINE SPEED, too):
---
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2014770&cid=35337228
---
OR, here either:
---
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2014770&cid=35338106
---
The best part of whenever you "spin-CON-troll" fanboys do your ad hominem attacks on me, is simple: You show EVERYONE HERE READING that my points are, unassailable & solid!... & for that? I actually THANK you! apk
How do you figure I am "anti-blocking":
"You are violently anti-blocking." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, @02:57PM (#35340704)
Especially after my 1st reply here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2014770&cid=35337228
(Which is, of course, ANYTHING BUT "anti-adbanner blocking" because I am ALL for it, &, for a # of SOLID GOOD REASONS end-users benefit by, no questions asked, for THEIR MONIES THEY PAY TO BE ONLINE no less!)
Namely (via this enumerated list that summarizes my 1st post here in this very exchange):
---
1.) More speed
2.) More security
3.) More anonymity vs. tracking
4.) An unobtrusive "HBO Internet" (no commercials).
---
?
APK
P.S.=> This, lol, I have to see... especially after the 1st HUGELY FAILED attempt @ disproving my points here:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2014770&cid=35338106
apk
I noticed that although it blocked adds. On almost all sites this was done very well. Only problem is that it seems is that it just hides the add from display but the link of the add is still active. Firefox add remove(add-on) removes the link of the add. So you cant miss click the add.