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."
Because it comes pre-installed. And a lot of people want/need something that works out of the box. They don't know about add-ons. They don't care about security, they just want to surf the web.
no doubt the button to reset this feature to defaults (and remove any blacklisting) will be hidden seven layers deep in complex "Options" dialogs
Tools>Safety>Tracking Protection>Disable
I would say that most people think of a Computer with Internet the same as Television.
If I just watch content then how could I get a virus? I was just watching!
I have to agree with them at the most fundamental level.
Bing doesn't need a backdoor. Its probably easier for them to just Google you to find out about you.
Ryans Tutorials - A collection of technology tutorials.
I would say that most people think of a Computer with Internet the same as Television.
If I just watch content then how could I get a virus? I was just watching!
I have to agree with them at the most fundamental level.
The difference is that television is one-to-many communication and fundamentally one-way.
The Internet is many-to-many communication and fundamentally two-way.
The people who fail to recognize the difference and the implications of that difference are simply wrong. Fundamentally wrong, if you like. The fact that assuming security doesn't matter is a sure way to get 0wned is a very strong argument against them. I am all for advocating what someone believes is an ideal expectation, but not when it contradicts the manifest reality. Then it's just ignorance. Ignorance is not and has never been a solid foundation for good decision-making.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Let me get this straight. It's my fault if someone kills me in my home. I should have cared better about security? It's not the consumers fault for believing when they buy a pc with legal software they have everything they need. When I buy a new car, I'm not going to take it to a garage to check the brakes, you just assume it works. Not everybody knows a thing or 2 about software/hardware. No matter how you turn it. It's still the baddies fault.
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.
Let me get this straight. It's my fault if someone kills me in my home. I should have cared better about security?
It's not the consumers fault for believing when they buy a pc with legal software they have everything they need. When I buy a new car, I'm not going to take it to a garage to check the brakes, you just assume it works. Not everybody knows a thing or 2 about software/hardware.
No matter how you turn it. It's still the baddies fault.
The problem with broad analogies is that they fail to account for the fact that one situation is not like the others.
A "pc with legal software" is more like a firearm. At least in the States, it's legal to own. That doesn't mean it isn't potentially dangerous if misused. A general-purpose computer is a powerful machine. It is not a mere appliance. It can both help and harm its owner. Which one occurs depends on the owner and what the owner is willing to invest in his or her own experience.
Computers are not yet ready for the stupid, ignorant, careless, irresponsible, etc. They are not idiot-proof. In the case of Microsoft, they will fail to live up to the marketing claims of security and ease-of-use. It is up to We the People, or if you like, We the Customer to realize this and act accordingly. Certainly the government is not going to make Microsoft liable for damages suffered by compromises of its operating systems. So it's up to the users. Ideal or non-ideal, just or unjust, that is the reality. You either deny it and suffer or acknowledge it and avoid preventable suffering. That much is your choice. It's about the only choice you're going to have in the matter, right or wrong.
Those who disagree with me can always get compromised and complain about how much of a victim they are. As for me, I'd rather inform myself and protect myself. Every adult has the same choice in the matter. Ultimately, reality is a really tough thing with which to argue.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I do, because Firefox has slowly turned into a bloated pile of ass. Ironically, it's now more bloated and slower then IE9. This isn't 2004 anymore and we aren't talking about IE6.
-1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
You should care, because if ad block becomes defacto and comes preinstalled with IE9, ad agencies would quickly start workaround it (just like how hulu does currently (hulu's policy is, you can use adblock, but you would have to putup with a min of absolute silence and blank screen before the show continues))
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.
Give me the option of blocking all of Microsoft partner's ads while keeping Google's and I will consider installing it, not being mandated by the operating system's pre-installed browser. Who needs a content filter on their PC?
Society use your Sciences
Of course they think of their computer as an appliance, that is how PC makers market them. That is how Microsoft markets Its OS. And to throw in an automotive analogy, it's how Toyota markets their vehicles.
Serenity now, insanity later.
Given that IE is the most secure browser after Chrome, your point misses the mark by a large margin.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Ahh, "sheeple". The key word to let you know that the entire argument is worthless dribble.
Gone!
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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..."
Personally, I don't want to see ad-blocking go main stream (I feel the same way about Linux too, but that's another rant)
Over the years I've become quite adept at writing rules for adblock to block ads, trackers, and otherwise undesirable content.
This will only serve to make advertisers come up ways to make advertising more difficult to block and ultimately more obtrusive.
^^vv<><>BA
Have you even looked at the list of providers? They are third-party sites, like eTrust that has been around for ages.
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
Yes.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Don't bring facts into this.
The difference is that television is one-to-many communication and fundamentally one-way. The Internet is many-to-many communication and fundamentally two-way.
But TV is also many-to-many (there are hundreds of content providers) and is (indirectly) two-way as well: if I see an ad for an appealing product, I might pick up the phone and purchase it. But note that doing so takes overt action on my part, as should any two-way actions on the web.
The people who fail to recognize the difference and the implications of that difference are simply wrong. Fundamentally wrong, if you like. The fact that assuming security doesn't matter is a sure way to get 0wned is a very strong argument against them.
Or perhaps it's a strong argument against the current, totally pathetic, state of affairs - where simply browsing to a website (even a "safe" site like CNN, if it's been hacked) can infest your computer. I don't think that telling grandma it's her own fault she got pwned by doing nothing more than clicking a hyperlink in an email is a good use of the industry's time - better to spend that time making sure it cannot happen again.
Look, we got into this disaster innocently enough - the academic environment where the early work was done simply wasn't conducive to the sort of paranoia necessary in the real world. OK fine, no one's pointing fingers. But let's not pretend that the current situation is reasonable! Getting back to the TV analogy, it's as if switching to the wrong channel (or even the right channel, if it's been taken over by bad guys) could cause your TV to explode, embedding shrapnel in your face - and then we (the industry) have the balls to blame the viewer for not understanding the different between NTSC and PAL and why Beta was better than VHS and the fact that HDMI carries sound but DVI doesn't. Well of course your TV blew up, you ignorant moron! Anyone who watches TV without taking a couple years of electrical engineering and signal theory deserves to have shrapnel in their face! Fricken' Noobs!