Microsoft Reaffirms Default Do-Not-Track For IE10, Windows 8 Express Setup

yay! by Johann+Lau · 2012-08-07 21:18 · Score: 0

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day :)

Re:yay! by imagined.by · 2012-08-07 21:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

But in this case, it's horribly wrong.
This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
Re:yay! by PimpBot · 2012-08-07 21:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't you think it was DOA anyways? The system depended upon honest advertisers, which is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
Re:yay! by nzac · 2012-08-07 21:51 · Score: 1

My understanding is just IE 10 users won't be able to DNT; as the browsers should make explicitly an opt in choice (ideally hidden somewhere). Now to opt into it they would have to change there user-agent or something else far harder than it should be.
If win8 adoption is slow then everything will be fine for everyone else.
Re:yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-07 22:08 · Score: 0

I have a hard time trying to decide what Microsoft's game is here.
On the one hand, Microsoft have big competitors who depend on tracking data, and tracking off by default hurts Google more than MS. While DNT is currently voluntary, there are indications that once it's up and running regulators (in several countries) would consider making it mandatory to obey the header.
On the other hand, this comes across as a pretty cack-handed attempt. As all corporate gamers of standards know, you keep quite about what you're up to for as long as possible, only revealing your dastardly plan once the standard is ratified and in use once it's hard for your competitors to change track. If Google starts to ignore DNT from IE, claiming (correctly) that it doesn't represent a user choice then the standard falls apart. Maybe this is in MS's interests too (they have adverting supported web businesses too) and they're quite happy with that outcome after all, getting to proclaim their own privacy stance and point fingers at big bad Google along the way.
Re:yay! by ChatHuant · 2012-08-07 22:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
Good. The do-not-track project as designed by Mozilla and Google is worthless, and I'm reasonably sure it's intentionally broken. It's just trusting the web site to agree to your browser's plea to please not track it; there is no enforcement mechanism, and no way to even know your request is honored or not. A proper design would not even connect to a tracker's web site.

Of course, Google has a major conflict of interest in this - tracking people is what makes them the big money; that's why I suspect Mozilla and Google came up with this "design", pretending to care about privacy while aware that many users aren't knowledgeable or caring enough to set the DNT flag, and also on the fact that when push comes to shove they can just ignore the "don't track" request. Microsoft is pretty much calling their bluff there.
Re:yay! by oldlurker · 2012-08-07 22:18 · Score: 2

But in this case, it's horribly wrong.
This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
I don't understand this argument (I know it after much discussion was the compromise in the standard, but it is not a good one). Do not stalk me unless I allow you to should be the default expected behavior. That the built-in popup-blocker block popup ads by default doesn't give the website any right to claim that I didn't really actively choose to block popup ads so they are free to circumvent it.
It seems some people were hoping advertisers would respect their settings to opt-out, as long as not too many people knew about it and did it (because a significant number of users opting out would surely also "KILL the do-not-track project", stopping advertisers from respecting the setting, if they ever will). I just think this is a strange and unsustainable approach. Hopefully this will provoke a better approach.
Re:yay! by Joce640k · 2012-08-07 22:39 · Score: 1

This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
Why?

--
No sig today...
Re:yay! by wmac1 · 2012-08-07 22:41 · Score: 1

Could users possibly sue websites if they find the website has not honored their DNT settings?
Re:yay! by Ami+Ganguli · 2012-08-07 22:44 · Score: 1

The argument is that most users don't really mind being tracked, but certainly aren't going to go out of their way to enable it. The majority just doesn't care enough to actively turn DNT on, even if it's easy to find in the settings.
That's very different from pop-ups, which are immediately obnoxious and swear-inducing.
From my own experience, I suspect this is in fact true. Regular people just aren't up in arms about tracking, even though everybody knows it happens.

--
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Re:yay! by sortius_nod · 2012-08-07 22:45 · Score: 1

I actually see it more as a "fuck you" to Google. Do not track screws with anyone who's revenue comes from tracking people & their online interactions.
Re:yay! by million_monkeys · 2012-08-07 22:45 · Score: 1

But in this case, it's horribly wrong.
This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
Perhaps. But that reveals the underlying flaw in the do no track (DNT) idea (even if companies want to honor it): It doesn't work if everyone opts not to be tracked. There's just too much perceived value from tracking users. When it's less than 1% of the total users asking not to be tracked, marketers don't really lose anything by honoring the system. But setting IE 10 to use DNT by default means 95+% of IE 10 users will be using DNT. That's a huge market share gone,
And maybe more importantly, DNT becomes no longer opt-in. It's now an opt out system for nearly half of the users. That adds a pretty powerful argument to ignore the opt out request: nearly all of the users didn't really choose to opt-out of tracking, they just selected the default setting. So tracking them doesn't really violate their wishes. Out of 20 people who say "don't track me", maybe one actually means it. If you're a web company, even with the best of intentions, it's hard to give up tracking 20 people just to honor the wishes of one.
(This post brought to you by a six pack of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale.)
Re:yay! by Joce640k · 2012-08-07 23:20 · Score: 1

Maybe, but are you really going to try and sue a Bermudan company for tracking you (or wherever they'll put the servers if this ever becomes legally enforceable...)
Only one thing is certain about DNT: It won't stop anybody from tracking you.
What we really need is a browser which detects tracking and randomizes results. Make it pointless to even try tracking you.

--
No sig today...
Re:yay! by Joce640k · 2012-08-07 23:24 · Score: 1

I think the architects are hoping that only 1% of users will enable it, and those 1% aren't really valuable to advertisers anyway (it might even be more valuable to know who they are than to track them).
If it's on by default then yeah, it'll die. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

--
No sig today...
Re:yay! by guises · 2012-08-07 23:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Exactly. My initial reaction was against this, but self regulation never works. Do Not Track is simply an effort by the data aggregators to stave off real privacy regulation - "Look! We'll make a token gesture to respect the privacy of the tech savvy minority as long as we can run roughshod over the vast majority. See, we're honest folks."

Kudos to Microsoft for calling it like it is on this one.
Re:yay! by citizenr · 2012-08-07 23:53 · Score: 1

The argument is that most users don't really mind being tracked
I like how you equate being tracked to donating organs (same mechanism). Must be USian thing.

--
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
Re:yay! by fiddley · 2012-08-08 00:41 · Score: 1

The countries involved will legislate if the the advertisers decline to follow the voluntary code. This is the worst of end games for the advertisers because the legislation will likely be more draconian and far-reaching than the DNT code of conduct ever was. It's win-win for Microsoft.

--
If medicine were ever perfected, we'd all be the same.
Re:yay! by Dunbal · 2012-08-08 01:13 · Score: 1

This is great news for the 53 people who will be using IE 10 and Windows 8. Just like Vista I don't see a compelling reason to "upgrade". Unlike Vista, however, I see many, many reasons NOT to switch to Windows 8. The fact that Microsoft are tying this OS to their tablet-like thing pretty much dooms it to failure too. Hey it's my opinion, and I could be wrong. I admire that Microsoft is taking a pretty huge gamble. But I think it's a gamble they are going to lose. Surely Redmond could have come up with a better strategy but I guess Microsoft sufferes from the same illness that affects all corporations after a while when they get big enough: mediocrity.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:yay! by Ami+Ganguli · 2012-08-08 01:28 · Score: 1

Actually I'm Canadian, but in any case I don't see your point. How did I equate DNT to donating organs? And is this a good thing or a bad thing?

--
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Re:yay! by O('_')O_Bush · 2012-08-08 02:01 · Score: 1

It is also dependent on the EULA not including something along the lines of "by using this site you give express permission to be tracked..."

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Re:yay! by DragonWriter · 2012-08-08 02:44 · Score: 3, Informative

This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.

And, in the meantime, give trackers that don't support DNT on the backend (like Microsoft) an temporary advantage over those that do (like Google.)

Don't you think it was DOA anyways? The system depended upon honest advertisers, which is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
The system depended on the advertising industry thinking that adhering to the voluntary system was at least as good of a deal as what they'd get under a regulatory regime, since the whole purpose of the voluntary system was to stave off threats of regulation.
Its unlikely that the industry would see a an opt-in requirement imposed in a regulatory regime, though an opt-out requirement would be quite likely. It therefore makes no sense for the industry to prefer an opt-in voluntary scheme, though an opt-out voluntary scheme is certainly worthwhile.
Re:yay! by DragonWriter · 2012-08-08 03:05 · Score: 1

I actually see it more as a "fuck you" to Google. Do not track screws with anyone who's revenue comes from tracking people & their online interactions.
No. Microsoft gets revenue that way, but DNT by default doesn't screw with them because -- unlike Google -- they don't actually support DNT at all on the backend.
Which is a big factor in why they are overly enthusiastic in supporting it in their browser. It screws with their competitors that actually respect DNT preferences based on the DNT design, which is opt-out-of-tracking, not opt-in.
With DNT by default in IE, Microsoft gains a major competitive advantage over Google in advertising.
Re:yay! by sprint907 · 2012-08-08 04:37 · Score: 0

Why can't these browsers themselves stop the tracking? I am sure the most elementary browsers are able to do this
Re:yay! by sprint907 · 2012-08-08 05:00 · Score: 0

Just like a popup windows, every time a piece of information is going to some other website, a popup should alert the user. Also giving him/her the option to disable tracking.
Re:yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 05:02 · Score: 0

Here's the thing.
You should have the most secure and most private settings by default. For the same reason you shouldn't always run as an admin user, etc..
If the system doesn't work when you have the most private settings on as a default, then that option is broken in the first place*. This isn't something where there's a user convenience tradeoff, eg. "should I force the user to re-enter the password at 1 minute vs. 5 minutes" -- there you can easily justify a technically less-secure option by default, because the system still works, it's just annoying. This is a case where it's the industry that has to make the tradeoff for the user's security. If you don't want the tradeoff, you're choosing the industry over the user. Which isn't necessarily evil but it flies in the face of the usual slashdot ethos. One side always loses in general in an industry vs. user tradeoff, and I think a lot of slashdotters either: don't value their privacy (in which case the whole argument is pointless so they should stop posting because it doesn't matter what the default is), or else they do but they already plan to set this option on every browser they touch, and that's why they are okay with the big bad industry winning out overall.
*Even if it did work, the absence of Do Not Track should be treated as Do Not Track = on instead of being its own state.
Re:yay! by sexconker · 2012-08-08 05:12 · Score: 1

This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
Good. The do-not-track project as designed by Mozilla and Google is worthless, and I'm reasonably sure it's intentionally broken. It's just trusting the web site to agree to your browser's plea to please not track it; there is no enforcement mechanism, and no way to even know your request is honored or not. A proper design would not even connect to a tracker's web site.
Of course, Google has a major conflict of interest in this - tracking people is what makes them the big money; that's why I suspect Mozilla and Google came up with this "design", pretending to care about privacy while aware that many users aren't knowledgeable or caring enough to set the DNT flag, and also on the fact that when push comes to shove they can just ignore the "don't track" request. Microsoft is pretty much calling their bluff there.
Any entity operating within the EU will face heavy fines for not respecting DNT.
There is no way to "not even connect to a tracker's web site" because websites who would ignore DNT would be the same websites who don't provide / lie about their privacy policy.
Short of disconnecting from the internet, DNT + fines out the ass for anyone caught ignoring it is the only workable solution.
Re:yay! by sexconker · 2012-08-08 05:13 · Score: 1

Why can't these browsers themselves stop the tracking? I am sure the most elementary browsers are able to do this
Because the browser doesn't control the server you're connecting to.
Tracking isn't limited to cookies.
Re:yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 05:25 · Score: 1

I know this probably kills it for our product that tracks users. At the moment it honors Do-Not-Track and it is easy for me to justify it to my boss: the negative effects are negligible since only small minority will turn it on and those people that do so will probably not be happy about targeted advertising anyway. But if it is default in major a browser then forget about it.
Re:yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 05:30 · Score: 0

You didn't really equate DNT with organ donation, but the same principle applies, most people don't object to donating their organs, but few actually opt-in to being an organ donator. There are a few countries (I think Spain is one) that made organ donation opt-out and the result was a large majority of people don't opt out.
Re:yay! by crystal_rose · 2012-08-08 05:41 · Score: 1

This won't kill DNT! It was a waste of time before and it will continue to serve that function well into the foreseeable future.
It's like a "Do Not Rob Me" sign on your house. The people who honour the sign aren't the one's you were worried about in the first place.
Re:yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 05:43 · Score: 0

If it is set to on by default the website owner doesn't know if the user truly doesn't wish to be tracked since most users don't change the default option, that makes this flag meaningless, and since compliance with do-not-track is voluntary the website owner may just choose to ignore this flag since Microsoft has rendered it meaningless.
Re:yay! by ChatHuant · 2012-08-08 05:47 · Score: 0

There is no way to "not even connect to a tracker's web site" because websites who would ignore DNT would be the same websites who don't provide / lie about their privacy policy.
Of course there is; it's called a blacklist. Knowledgeable people or organizations can identify trackers, and publish up to date lists. Some of us are already doing this, using the h***s file (I hope I don't wake up any trolls), but it's not easy for the average user. The browser should have a built in blacklisting facility and especially a mechanism for easy or, better, automatic updating of the blacklist. The user should get a default list (maybe updateable via Windows or Apple update or similar mechanisms), but he should also be able to choose a trusted organization (like the EFF) and subscribe to updated lists of trackers.

With this design, when some web page includes a link pointing to a web bug in the tracker's domain, my browser will just ignore it. With Google's design, the browser will go grab the bug, and ask the (unknown, untrusted, and probably not in the EU, so not covered by their laws) tracker to be kind and lose money on this transaction. I really don't think it'll work.
Re:yay! by Johann+Lau · 2012-08-08 07:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
This is such bullshit. But you kinda have to argue so I can refute you.
If anything, DNT is killed by it being dependant on what websites say they would or would not honor.
It would also be effectively killed if it was OFF by default, since most people will have it off, so even if websites don't track a bunch of nerds, that doesn't mean shit in the big picture.
Let's recap: The rapist is proposing he won't rape, if 98% of people will "consent" to sex. And then someone says "let's not consent by default", so the rapist says "then I won't cooperate". And you FUCKING blame the person who made the sensible suggestion?
Positive moderation doesn't mean it's not stupid. It just means the moderators are stupid, too, the end.
Re:yay! by sexconker · 2012-08-08 08:29 · Score: 1

There is no way to "not even connect to a tracker's web site" because websites who would ignore DNT would be the same websites who don't provide / lie about their privacy policy.
Of course there is; it's called a blacklist. Knowledgeable people or organizations can identify trackers, and publish up to date lists. Some of us are already doing this, using the h***s file (I hope I don't wake up any trolls), but it's not easy for the average user. The browser should have a built in blacklisting facility and especially a mechanism for easy or, better, automatic updating of the blacklist. The user should get a default list (maybe updateable via Windows or Apple update or similar mechanisms), but he should also be able to choose a trusted organization (like the EFF) and subscribe to updated lists of trackers.
With this design, when some web page includes a link pointing to a web bug in the tracker's domain, my browser will just ignore it. With Google's design, the browser will go grab the bug, and ask the (unknown, untrusted, and probably not in the EU, so not covered by their laws) tracker to be kind and lose money on this transaction. I really don't think it'll work.
Whitelisting/blacklisting? LOL
Who has root access to every web server in the world to see if they're tracking visitors or not? Remember, tracking is not limited to cookies.
Who decides which forms of tracking are tracking and which are "tracking"?
Who decides which sites are tracking you and which are not?
Who maintains the list?
Who pays for it?
Re:yay! by lilfields · 2012-08-08 09:28 · Score: 1

Microsoft gets money that way? Bing isn't profitable, it's just Microsoft's foray to insure Google doesn't become too powerful. If this screws Google they can pull some of their research out of Bing and into something else. Google's biggest problem is that they aren't diversified. Android is their diversification, but they basically serve it up for free and get people to use their search engine more. Everything Google is built around search just like everything Microsoft is built around Windows....for Microsoft that mindset backfired in the past decade...and I am sure it will for Google too. The good news is that while Google, Microsoft & Apple battle, generally speaking we win.
Re:yay! by Johann+Lau · 2012-08-08 10:46 · Score: 1

And you FUCKING blame the person who made the sensible suggestion?
"But Johann, why would someone be so lame?"
"My child, because *they* know about the possibility to opt out, and find that standing up to something, even though they're not among the victims themselves, is just being silly."
"Is that why they conveniently project their own wickedness on Microsoft, not to mention because it's so super easy, Microsoft generally being evil and all that?"
"Hmmm, you might be on to something here. But then again you're learning from the best! Let's forgive them, for they clearly don't have the faintest fucking idea what they're doing."
Re:yay! by DragonWriter · 2012-08-08 11:30 · Score: 1

Microsoft gets money that way? Bing isn't profitable
Bing, while it may be one of the venues in which Microsoft displays ads, isn't Microsoft's online advertising business. Now, admittedly, that unit isn't very profitable, because while giant piles of money come in through it, giant piles of money also go out. But its clearly in Microsoft's interest to find ways to leverage other offerings to improve the profitability of that business.

Google's biggest problem is that they aren't diversified.
Sure, that seems to be the case.

Android is their diversification
Not really; Android is a mechanism for ensuring that the core business doesn't get locked out in favor of vendor-preferred offerings from other mobile OS vendors. It also supports some of their "diversified" offerings, but it isn't really part of their diversification itself, because, as you note "they basically serve it up for free and get people to use their search engine more."

Everything Google is built around search just like everything Microsoft is built around Windows
That's not really true. Everything Google is built around the infrastructure that they had to build to support search. A lot of it is related to search, too, but not all of it: App Engine, Cloud Storage, Cloud Engine, BigQuery, Cloud SQL, and a number of Google's cloud services, are all pay services (some of which have free tiers available) which re-sell the distributing computing infrastructure which Google had to build for Search, bur aren't all that search-centered.
Re:yay! by Ami+Ganguli · 2012-08-08 12:00 · Score: 1

Ah, true enough. Though I think the case for default opt-in for organ donation is very strong and clear-cut (this should be done everywhere), while I'm not really sure about do-not-track. In the case of organ donation 1) there's a clear public interest, 2) the people who refuse to donate are essentially free-loading off of the those who opt-in.

--
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Re:yay! by ChatHuant · 2012-08-08 13:14 · Score: 1

Who has root access to every web server in the world to see if they're tracking visitors or not? Remember, tracking is not limited to cookies.
Strawman, and not a very good one either. You don't need access to "every web server in the world". The solution I proposed solves the bulk of the problem: large trackers will be recognized and blacklisted, precisely because they're large. A number of small trackers may avoid blacklisting, but the only way to do that is to remain small, and thus not much of a nuisance. And cookies have nothing to do with my argument, so I don't really know where this comes from.

Who decides which forms of tracking are tracking and which are "tracking"?
Who decides which sites are tracking you and which are not?
Who maintains the list?
You really haven't read the message you're replying to, have you? I touched on those things in my previous post; however, here it is again: the user has the choice (as opposed to Google's proposal, where the choice is with the ad tracker). He can decide a site is malicious or not, based on whatever criteria he deems important. I expect though that relatively knowledgeable users who don't want to be too bothered will subscribe to a tracker list published by a trusted organization of his choice. And for the average user, Microsoft or Apple or other browser developer can provide a default blacklist automatically updated.

Who pays for it?
What payment are you talking about? The tracker's? The point is exactly that lots of people will stop unwillingly or unknowingly paying the trackers (with their information, that is). Maybe you're talking about the publishers of tracking lists? I assume some may offer the tracking list as a paid service, and if they're good some users may choose to pay. But I'd like to introduce you to this concept of "free software" - look it up, it may surprise you. In the same spirit as free software, I'm pretty sure there'll be lots of community supported tracker lists that users can subscribe to.
Re:yay! by sexconker · 2012-08-09 08:27 · Score: 1

You have no way of knowing what Google actually does with your information.
Thus you have no way of knowing if they're tracking you.
Thus a whitelist/blacklist is impossible.
Either you're retarded, or you're the one who's not reading.
Re:yay! by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-09 09:35 · Score: 1

What makes you think Mozilla has a material interest on this?
I trust Mozilla to have good intention.

Re:Do not what? by hcs_$reboot · 2012-08-07 21:22 · Score: 4, Funny

And you don't know Google search either. What kind of web sites do you build?

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...

Wait a minute, by Hermanas · 2012-08-07 21:23 · Score: 0, Troll

IE 10 already has a score of 319 in html5test.com, while MS is trying to position IE as a great browser again.

Again!? Implying it was great once? What have I missed? I've been in web development for around 12 years now, and I most certainly do not remember ever having many nice things to say about IE. Or do you mean great, as in having the majority monopoly-based userbase?

Re:Wait a minute, by ledow · 2012-08-07 21:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

Better than that, the IE10 score is lower than just about every current browser on the market, except IE9. :-)
Re:Wait a minute, by cheater512 · 2012-08-07 21:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Wow! A score of 319 is really impressive!
Wait hang on.
* Chrome 22: 442
* Chrome 21: 437
* Opera 12.50: 409
* Firefox 14: 345
Sure its better than IE 9, but a modern browser it is not.
Doesn't even come close to stable Firefox.
Re:Wait a minute, by ledow · 2012-08-07 21:43 · Score: 2, Funny

Sod that. It doesn't even come close to Opera Mobile!
Re:Wait a minute, by Billly+Gates · 2012-08-07 21:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

IE 10 already has a score of 319 in html5test.com, while MS is trying to position IE as a great browser again.
Again!? Implying it was great once? What have I missed? I've been in web development for around 12 years now, and I most certainly do not remember ever having many nice things to say about IE. Or do you mean great, as in having the majority monopoly-based userbase?
10 years ago how well did Netscape 4.7 do CSS compared to IE 6? ... thats what I thought.
Soulskill edited my entry as I put a whim of sarcasm stating slashdotters and webmasters favorite browser (sarcasm intended). Needless to say I remember IE 6 frustratingly and angrily beating Netscape quite well as it was the first browser to support the proper box model as long as it didn't go into quirks mode. I wanted Netscape to win but 10 years ago went to IE 6 and it was a better browser. IE 5 was not bad either and invented AJAX. IE 6 is just well very old and not meant for anything but simple 50k websites with 2 or 3 tiny 25k pics with a css that is about half dozen lines or less usually specifying fonts or something silly. Not the bloated sites we have today. The things it does wrong are were very cutting edge and not standardized in 2001. It is similiar to alot of css 3 stuff I see with different arguments for color picking a gradient for example. W3c will pick one syntax in 10 years times and one of the browsers today wont be standards complaint with it in the future. IE 6 shouldn't have been used for so long.
MS let it rot and did not fix the rendering bugs nor the huge security risks as MS thought we would all be using Vista and IE 7 by 2005 (2004 was Longhorns original date if I remember correctly) and the delaying made things worse.
Anyway give MS credit for at least trying to make a somewhat decent browser and making your life as a web developer easier. IE 10 is supposed to be truly competitive to Firefox and Chrome which is good for METRO developers. Remember people like your Mom, grandparents, Chinese, and corporate employers wont ever switch no matter how much we beg. At least let them enjoy a somewhat similar browsing experience you have at home. I saw a benchmark testing emca javascript and IE 10 was the most compliant browser out there. It will make everyone's life easier if people use 1 standard for the internet and IE is catching up finally.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Wait a minute, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-07 21:46 · Score: 0

What have I missed? I've been in web development for around 12 years now
You missed pretty much everything. 1993 to 2000 was a time of incredibly rapid evolution in web standards. You can't understand where we are now with browser compatibility without understanding what happened then. By the start of your career in 2000 Netscape was pretty much irrelevant, HTML 4.01 and CSS2 were specified, AJAX had been invented, IE5 was the best browser (really) and IE6 was just around the corner. The years after 2000 (and before HTML5) were a fairly stagnant period of consolidation.
Re:Wait a minute, by Shimbo · 2012-08-07 21:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

10 years ago how well did Netscape 4.7 do CSS compared to IE 6?
10 years ago Netscape 4.7 had been abandoned several years: Netscape 6, on the other hand wiped the floor with IE 6 on CSS, although admittedly, it sucked in numerous other ways.
Re:Wait a minute, by makomk · 2012-08-07 22:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

Apparently, even Konqueror - which hasn't really been under active development for years and had very little funding before then - manages to score 321.
Re:Wait a minute, by Hermanas · 2012-08-07 22:17 · Score: 1

Truth be told, I do actually concur with most of what you said above. Back in the day IE wasn't all bad, and its differences didn't really bother me since 90% of people were using it anyway and no-one really knew where standards were heading. We were all rooting for Netscape, but I used IE for development and Opera for personal browsing.
My biggest gripe with IE was IE6 way overstaying its welcome, not honoring the box model, not properly reporting errors ("Error on line 0.") and completely breaking on stupid things like leaving a trailing comma after an array (which was supposed to be legal according to Ecmascript standards, and it would have helped if it at least just properly reported the line of the error).
So yes, at one stage it was arguably on par with browsers of the same release timeframe, at least as far as its users were concerned, and completely dominant in the realm of user adoption. Great? Considering IE6 was the last version for which both those statements held true, I still wouldn't use such a strong word. But it's probably just 10 years of directed hatred getting the better of me :)
Re:Wait a minute, by TheRaven64 · 2012-08-07 22:33 · Score: 2

I've been in web development for around 12 years now, and I most certainly do not remember ever having many nice things to say about IE
As the other poster said, you missed most of the development of the web. Between about 1996 and 2000, there were massive regular releases of browsers and people actually cared about upgrading because they got new features. There were also a lot of sites with 'Designed for IE' or 'Designed for Netscape' on them, so you typically had both installed so you could switch between them. Opera was either ad-supported or expensive, so the two free browsers were IE and Netscape. IE 3 was reasonable, but not especially exciting. Both IE4 and NS4 were massively hyped. I remember them both arriving on cover disks (too big to download on a modem) and trying them both. Netscape 4 was slow. IE4 came with the whole Active Desktop thing (which was slow), but was pretty reasonable. Oh, and didn't crash nearly as often as Netscape 4. IE 5 fixed most of the irritations with IE4, but Netscape was on their whole 'let's rewrite the whole thing from scratch' kick so didn't put out anything to compete with it. IE 6, again, was better.
I had to use Netscape 4.x on Linux machines in university, but at home I used IE for pretty much everything. By that point, Microsoft had pretty much all of the browser market and stopped caring. Mozilla (the open sourced Netscape) pushed out a release, but it was horrible and bloated. Oh, and buggy. And, because the mail and news client ran in the same XUL / XPCOM instance as the browser, when the browser crashed (as it did every few hours), it also killed the mail client and you lost any drafts you hadn't saved.
For a while, I used Mozilla for mail and IE for browsing (IE didn't crash very often, and when it did it didn't crash mail too). Then I bought Opera, and just used Mozilla for mail. Opera was definitely nicer than IE, but it was also quite expensive. I'm not sure if they still do, but back then they also sold it for FreeBSD and NetBSD on a couple of architectures.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Wait a minute, by wmac1 · 2012-08-07 22:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

So we no more play the ACID test game?
Re:Wait a minute, by neyla · 2012-08-07 22:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

They're behind the curve for sure, but it *is* a significant step forward.
IE9 scores 138. Firefox 14 scores 345. IE10 scores 319.
Yes, it's still the worst of the major browsers, but the distance is smaller, scoring 92% of firefox is a LOT better than 40% which is the current status.
Re:Wait a minute, by dingen · 2012-08-07 23:56 · Score: 1

Again!? Implying it was great once?
IE3 was pretty good and I liked IE4 as well. At least it was a whole lot better than the big mess Netscape presented with Navigator 4.
Nothing but misery after that though.

--
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Re:Wait a minute, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 04:39 · Score: 0

Major browsers are already passing acid3 test and as far as I know there's no ccs4 yet. Next target is html5. I think it is good that we are bit standing still.
Re:Wait a minute, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 04:43 · Score: 0

bit=not
Re:Wait a minute, by Billly+Gates · 2012-08-08 08:04 · Score: 1

IE 9 passed all of them. It is a standards compliant browser.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Wait a minute, by cheater512 · 2012-08-08 11:18 · Score: 1

Better as in a snail is faster than a rock, but isn't as fast as say an elderly woman, let alone a car.
Re:Wait a minute, by Kalriath · 2012-08-08 12:37 · Score: 1

For a very brief period of time when Netscape 4 was the competition, it was comparatively great. If you try to argue, I'll know you never used Netscape 4.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

Well, considering MS is a grey evil by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-08-07 21:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

DNT only works if websites honor it. Some have already said that if browsers turned it on by default, they would not honor it. So... could MS, a company with a long history of embrace and strange while raping it up the ass, be enabling it by default to give websites an excuse to ignore it and thereby kill it from within while appearing to the gullible as a nice company?

Well, Soulskill sure is gullible enough. a great browser again. Indeed.

It ain't Paranoia if you think MS is out to screw everyone else. In fact, that is hopelessly naive. MS happily screws itself too.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:Well, considering MS is a grey evil by Ash-Fox · 2012-08-07 21:57 · Score: 1

I wonder if some will just ignore IE10 over this as opposed to all browsers.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:Well, considering MS is a grey evil by Johann+Lau · 2012-08-07 22:49 · Score: 1

MS makes money by selling stuff, and then locking people in. Google for example makes money by advertisement, which made more valuable by tracking people. So maybe Microsoft decided since they don't have to loose anything on this, they might as well claim the moral high ground: "our browser respects your privacy etc."

DNT only works if websites honor it. Some have already said that if browsers turned it on by default, they would not honor it.
If it's disabled by default, who honors it is pretty much irrelevant, since 99% of all people will have it disabled, never having heard of it. So yeah, of course they'd "honor" something that doesn't mean anything.
But hey, without any teeth, it doesn't mean anything either way - the honour system is pointless with scumbags. Turning it off by default would allow them to get statistics about people who don't like being tracked. Turning it on by default allows them to get statistics about everybody, and people who LIKE being tracked. I know which situation I like more.
But the rest, those who aren't outright criminal, will at least suffer a dent in coolness factor. As in, those who do not track, even though DHT is on by default, are cooler than those who do. Yes, it's hard to tell, but at least with large corporations one can hope that if they publically claim to honor DNT, but actually don't, someone will blow the whistle. That's not much, but better than nothing.
Right now, we're in mostly abusive relationships with many websites, and the only reason they get away with that is the claim that everybody does that, it's just normal. It just takes a bunch of "good guys" to prove that's false. Not a day passes without 1000s of people expressing their wish for a Facebook, Google, Apple or Microsoft (etc.) with morals. The technology is actually much easier to rebuilt from scratch than building and maintaining character: every learned monkey can make Twitter, but character takes more time, and more will. *cue butthurt web monkeys*
"That's some nice traffic you got there.. would be a shame if it dried up..." It ain't Paranoia if you think MS is out to screw everyone else.
What, exactly, does Microsoft have to gain from random websites tracking their users?
Re:Well, considering MS is a grey evil by Johann+Lau · 2012-08-07 22:52 · Score: 1

The bottom half of that post got gobbled up, sorry:
"That's some nice traffic you got there.. would be a shame if it dried up..." <-- what makes you think websites get to dictate shit? I'm not content with that approach. If they won't do the right thing, let's make them. This is Sparta, after all.

It ain't Paranoia if you think MS is out to screw everyone else.
What, exactly, does Microsoft have to gain from random websites tracking their users?

Re:Do not what? by ledow · 2012-08-07 21:30 · Score: 4, Informative

HTTP header to request "opt out" of any tracking on websites you visit.

i.e. will be ignored by just about everyone by default anyway, and even when you "opt out" you can still be tracked by most websites in the world, and turning it on or off will have virtually zero visible effect to the user so you'll never know even if the website "accidentally" tracked you anyway.

Worthless, ill-designed, junk.

Everyone is Super? by kubajz · 2012-08-07 21:30 · Score: 2

I wonder what websites will do once almost everyone has Do Not Track enabled. If it's just a few nerds... let's stop tracking them if they insist. If it's everyone...?

"And when everyone is Super... no one will be!" ---The Incredibles

Re:Everyone is Super? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-07 21:44 · Score: 0, Flamebait

> "And when everyone is Super... no one will be!" ---The Incredibles
glad i never watched the incredibles, it's amazing this kind of anti-communist bullshit is still being put in hollywood movies. the cold war is over assholes you can stop progandizing the kids, ok.
Re:Everyone is Super? by rsmith-mac · 2012-08-07 23:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pretty much. Short of government regulation we as a community can't actually compel advertisers to do anything (just getting them to acknowledge DNT in the first place was a small miracle), so if we actually make it hard for them to do their thing they'll just ignore DNT entirely.
Re:Everyone is Super? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 00:30 · Score: 0

Clearly you are not super.
Re:Everyone is Super? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 07:17 · Score: 0

I know you're trolling, but that was actually a quote from the bad guy.

Re:Do not what? by AngryDeuce · 2012-08-07 21:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, I don't know what people are smoking these days, but you've got to be seriously delusional if you think that Do Not Track is going to be respected in any way. They'll track anyway, and if they get busted, they'll call out the lawyer brigades and nothing will fucking happen. Hell, maybe they'll even end up with some sweet legal precedent saying they have every right to track us if we deign to navigate to one of their websites.

I trust NoScript and Adblock, I sure as shit do not trust "we won't track you, we promise!"

Wouldn't it be nice by MrKaos · 2012-08-07 21:44 · Score: 2

If all the browser support of Javascript, css and html5 was close to the same.

I know... I know...

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.

boo! by caspy7 · 2012-08-07 21:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Mod parent up please.

Even the folks who have gotten behind DNT and pushed are against this.

The only reason I can think that MS would do this is either for appearance or because they know it would destroy the effort, or both.

Re:boo! by Billly+Gates · 2012-08-07 22:05 · Score: 0

Or they hope it will screw Google over. That sounds more of a typical MS behavior but it would hurt Bing too as I do not know of any non IE user who uses that over Google?

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:boo! by TheRaven64 · 2012-08-07 22:16 · Score: 5, Informative

It won't screw Google over. The most relevant legislation with regard to DNT is the EU directive which says you must not track a user if they express a desire not to be tracked. However, if the header is sent by default, then Google can convincingly argue that the user has not expressed this desire. If, however, it is off by default, then this argument would be nonsense because the user must have explicitly enabled it.
I would love to see it as a setting with no default and a prompt when you install the browser, so that every user must make a conscious decision to either be tracked or not be tracked.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:boo! by Eirenarch · 2012-08-07 22:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

The article on Ars Technica states that the EU authorities stand behind DNT by default which if true means that Google can argue nothing (at least in Europe)
Re:boo! by wmac1 · 2012-08-07 22:47 · Score: 1

What if some European citizens sue Google and claim it did not honor their setting and DNT request?
Re:boo! by BeanThere · 2012-08-07 23:31 · Score: 1

Microsoft's business model is based on selling you OS and productivity software. Google's business model is based on tracking you, in order to deliver targeted advertising. So yeah, I'd think the former stands more to benefit than the latter via enabling this, but much as I dislike MS, in this case it seems beneficial to consumers as well as MS. Personally, I'm a bit tired of all this increased online tracking these days, and I think the only reason Joe Public hasn't revolted is most people don't know just how bad online tracking has become.
I don't see why the specification has to dictate a default though; why not leave it up to the browser vendor to decide?
I doubt it would kill the project to have it on by default though; on the contrary, I'm guessing someone is more worried about the potential for things like class action suits if it becomes the norm for this to be enabled on widely released software, almost 'forcing' Google to have to ignore it ... I'm guessing what they're worried about it is precisely that it will be effective at its exact goal (for at least so-called "non-evil" advertisers).
Re:boo! by BeanThere · 2012-08-07 23:40 · Score: 3

I would love to see it as a setting with no default and a prompt when you install the browser, so that every user must make a conscious decision to either be tracked or not be tracked.
But here's the thing. In spite of all this so-called debate, let's be honest, how many ordinary people are going to answer "Yes" to the question "Would you like other companies to be able to watch and compile databases of everything you do online?" ... I'm guessing approximately NOBODY. Who actually likes being watched?
However, if the header is sent by default, then Google can convincingly argue that the user has not expressed this desire
Actually, I'm willing to guess that a decent lawyer could convince a court that a reasonable person can be presumed by default to prefer not to be watched, given that pretty much nobody likes being watched. Put it another way, should you have to expressly opt out of me installing a camera in your bathroom, or can you by default be presumed to prefer that I not put a camera in your bathroom? The presence of a DNT selection, which people will rightfully not turn on, could clinch it. I suspect this is why the debate around this is so strong.
Re:boo! by dhasenan · 2012-08-07 23:47 · Score: 1

Bad analogy. People are tracking your interactions with their servers, and sometimes selling this information to others. It would be closer to a department store using facial recognition with their security cameras to track your behavior in their store.
Re:boo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-07 23:59 · Score: 0

Dispense with the hand-waving sophistry and just answer this simple yes/no question: The majority of people would express a preference to be tracked online if given the choice? Yes/No.
Re:boo! by BeanThere · 2012-08-08 00:02 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The analogy is a thought experiment, dumbass, not a claim that online tracking is the precise exact equivalent of installing cameras in your bathroom (but that should be fucking obvious, so I have to question your motives in purposely misinterpreting and misconstruing what I wrote).
Re:boo! by Whiteox · 2012-08-08 00:12 · Score: 1

I think the only reason Joe Public hasn't revolted is most people don't know just how bad online tracking has become.

How do you mean that? That they are ignorant for whatever reason, or, the advertising they are seeing are of their interest because of targeted tracking?
In that case, tracking can be controlled somewhat by the use of IE add-ons that have different levels of filtering,

--
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Re:boo! by FireFury03 · 2012-08-08 01:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

how many ordinary people are going to answer "Yes" to the question "Would you like other companies to be able to watch and compile databases of everything you do online?" ... I'm guessing approximately NOBODY

If you say "do you want to have your online movements tracked and get nothing in exchange" I guess you'd be right. But sometimes there are benefits to the consumer to being tracked, so you may have different answers if you asked "do you want to have your online movements tracked in exchange for a pony"... See: store loyalty cards.

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re:boo! by tqk · 2012-08-08 02:49 · Score: 1

The majority of people would express a preference to be tracked online if given the choice? Yes/No.
"The majority of people would express a preference to allow commercial entitities and advertisers to offer them a richer, more relevant, and more personalized web surfing experience if given the choice? Yes/No."
Look around you. The answer is "Yes."

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:boo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 03:47 · Score: 1

So now you're claiming users are aware of, and accept, present levels of tracking? Really. We could trivially do another simple experiment, and that's to survey a few 'average users' to find out if they actually realize how much they are being tracked online. I am guessing most would be pretty unhappy with what they learn. Actually, as we develop software, I've done such surveys informally on some of our userbase, and most don't even have a clue of even the most basic tracking that is going on (most go wide-eyed if you simply explain to them a little bit of how Facebook can 'see' what sites you visit online if you have logged on to Facebook, and the site has a Facebook 'Like' button - USERS DO NOT KNOW). Your claims of informed consent are utter bullshit.
Re:boo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 04:14 · Score: 0

If you say "do you want to have your online movements tracked and get nothing in exchange" I guess you'd be right. But sometimes there are benefits to the consumer to being tracked, so you may have different answers if you asked "do you want to have your online movements tracked in exchange for a pony"...
(You may indeed.)
Your cash, your house, your phone, your life.
Tell us your habits, your fads, your fears
Give us your address, your shoe size, your years
Your digits, your plans, your number, your eyes
Your schedule, your desktop, your details, your life
Show us your children, your photos, your home
Here, take credit, take insurance, take a loan
Get a job, get a pension, get a haircut, get a suit
Play the lottery, play football, play the field, snort some toot
Adam Freeland, We Want Your Soul
Re:boo! by ShanghaiBill · 2012-08-08 05:21 · Score: 2

how many ordinary people are going to answer "Yes" to the question "Would you like other companies to be able to watch and compile databases of everything you do online?" ... I'm guessing approximately NOBODY.
How many ordinary people are going to answer "Yes" to the question "Would you like to see advertisements and information tailored to your actual interests, rather than random ads?" ... I'm guessing MOST PEOPLE.
Re:boo! by mcgrew · 2012-08-08 05:54 · Score: 1

He didn't misinterpret and misconstrue, he amplified to rediculous proportions to open your eyes to the fact that people don't want to be stalked. Why is it illegal for my ex-wife to stalk me, but OK for a website to?

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:boo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 06:07 · Score: 0

But sometimes there are benefits to the consumer to being tracked, so you may have different answers if you asked "do you want to have your online movements tracked in exchange for a pony"... See: store loyalty cards.
Not really a good example, because most people aren't aware that store loyalty cards are used that way. They figure it's only a way to encourage you to keep shopping at their store. And since that benefit for the company is obvious, they don't get suspicious and consequently they overlook the "we track everything you buy and sell the resulting profile to everyone and his dog" fine print.
I think that if the tracking/profiling/marketing aspect was more visible up-front, those loyalty cards would be less popular.
Re:boo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 06:51 · Score: 0

They go bankrupt.
Re:boo! by amliebsch · 2012-08-08 07:44 · Score: 1

I doubt it. I mean, I asm certain that most people value their privacy. They just don't value it all that highly. The first time frozen pizzas go on sale 5/$10, most people will conclude that it's worth the price.

--
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Re:boo! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 08:33 · Score: 0

Erm, I think most people would say, FUCK OFF with your UNSOLICITED ADVERTISING. If I want something, I'll go looking for it, and or ASK you to present it to me.
By definition, placing ANY kind of ad into my online experience automatically DIMINISHES it. I don't want them, and I don't care if they're perfectly custom-tailored to me by a horde of specially trained oompa-loompas and delivered on a golden fucking tray...
I'm pretty sure most people feel the same way. Advertisements are annoyances that are tolerated. NOBODY BUT NO-FUCKING-BODY who isn't profitting from ads likes them, and I'm pretty sure their perceptions of "richer, more relevant, and more personalized web surfing experience" doesn't include ANYTHING to do with advertising! (in fact, I'd bet MOST respondents, if asked, would say the BEST and EASIEST way to make their "web-surfing-experience, richer, more relevant and more personalized", would be TO GET RID OF THE FUCKING ADS...)
-AC
Re:boo! by tqk · 2012-08-08 16:23 · Score: 1

The majority of people would express a preference to be tracked online if given the choice? Yes/No.
The majority of people would express a preference to allow commercial entitities and advertisers to offer them a richer, more relevant, and more personalized web surfing experience if given the choice? Yes/No.
Look around you. The answer is "Yes."
So now you're claiming users are aware of, and accept, present levels of tracking?
Aware of, no. Accept, yes. It may be the elitist in me that thinks this but apathy and ignorance reign among the mass of humanity, especially online. Hell, most of them use Windows, and IE is the Internet, FFS.

We could trivially do another simple experiment, and that's to survey a few 'average users' to find out if they actually realize how much they are being tracked online. I am guessing most would be pretty unhappy with what they learn.
Really? I would guess you're wrong. I think it really depends on what slant you put on the question. You and I may see DHS and Big Brother and commercial datamining. They may see "a more relevant or accurate result from their web searches and more relevantly targetted web ads", etc.

Actually, as we develop software, I've done such surveys informally on some of our userbase, and most don't even have a clue of even the most basic tracking that is going on (most go wide-eyed if you simply explain to them a little bit of how Facebook can 'see' what sites you visit online if you have logged on to Facebook, and the site has a Facebook 'Like' button - USERS DO NOT KNOW).
I agree, though you must be talking to a more sophisticated crowd than I do. Those I see don't care, or if they do, they consider it a feature. "If the web knows more about me, I get a better, more personalized experience."

Your claims of informed consent are utter bullshit.
I claimed nothing. I just re-framed the stated question as gov't or corps would ask it, not as my friends at EFF would wish it asked.
FWIW, I hate this surveillance society that's been built on the web, I hate the commercialization of the web and the Internet, and I hate that people like my Mom have to be actively protected from those pirannas. I'm not oblivious, however, to the fact that we're all swimming with sharks.
Should I be disgusted with myself for having spent my career empowering some of those sharks (building or fixing their systems, building and programming their web backend dbs, fixing their crack-addled, eleven year old POS programs)? Considering what some of them have done with my work, I think yes. The Nuremburg Defense doesn't work, no matter how much the rent needs to be paid. We've all been co-opted if we're helping them.
Currently, I'm on strike awaiting epiphany.

--
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.

Microsoft at the Front and Back at the same time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-07 21:48 · Score: 0

Anyone remember P3P ? IE6 used to (not sure if it does or cares anymore) check for the P3P privacy profile and set cookie settings based on this when it came out. This resulted in many cases where the advertisement systems of the day stopped working before CORS and XSS security was ramped up.

Having DNT:1 on by default, in the web browser won't do a thing. It's up to the server admins to respect it. Unfortunately, servers are not updated as frequently as client software. Most linux installations are years out of date and only update Apache and PHP when a security problem appears. The default Apache install is still prefork... like for crying out loud get with the times. Ubuntu, CentOS, I'm looking at you guys. Get Apache 2.4 now and default to Event.

And as much US content is produced in the US, where there's no law mandating adherence to DNT, nothing is going to happen. There has to be a legal means of enforcement, and it just won't happen. Too much money to be made selling marketing data.

Re:Do not what? by caspy7 · 2012-08-07 21:50 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm a professional web developer of 16 years+, and I don't know what "Do Not Track" is.

No need to embarrass yourself in front of the class dude.

Firefox by Frankie70 · 2012-08-07 21:52 · Score: 1

I doubt if Firefox is going to do this anytime soon.

This is the reason Google made Chrome and also support Firefox monetarily.

Re:Firefox by caspy7 · 2012-08-07 21:59 · Score: 2

You're quite right. Mozilla, who has help to push Do Not Track and the first to implement it, is very much against turning it on by default. Doing so simply deflates the effort.
MS may very well have this in mind.
Re:Firefox by Paradise+Pete · 2012-08-08 00:33 · Score: 2

My guess is they want to hurt Google, which this will. And then when Google eventually starts ignoring it they can trumpet that fact and hurt them some more.

Re:Microsoft at the Front and Back at the same tim by Ash-Fox · 2012-08-07 21:52 · Score: 1

Prefork is pretty much used in any areas where Apache is used in high demand services. You can get fairly decent performance out of Apache in this mode provided you have adjusted the system's file descriptors according to the child processes and traffic the webserver is meant to handle.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

Re:319? Well well well. by Billly+Gates · 2012-08-07 21:53 · Score: 1

Look who decided to enter the browser wars again.
Still the lowest of the main browsers, and just a few over some handhelds browsers, so not that bad at all.

Oh god the consoles page saddens.
Even televisions have higher stats than they do, what the hell man, what the actual hell? That is embarrassing. (I don't think PSP can even run that page at all, probably get a out of memory or not allow the changing of any elements/styles)
Hell, PHONES have better browsers. They have no excuse when they are around the same prices.
Why the hell do they even bother going with Netfront if they don't even bother going all the way?
No wonder they are dying.

My Android phone has like 147. It is quite modern thank you very much.

First off, (I am not an IE lover here or a troll as I am just correcting the anti IE noise) html5test.com tests obscure things the website makers would like to see discussed on some mailings list. It is not w3c at all nor is all of recommended in anyway!

To say it is inferior to a handheld device like my galaxy s or someone said does not qualify as even modern is lubricious. Both Chrome and Firefox last summer has lower scores! Basically 10 months behind does not make it ancient on a standard people discuss in their mailing lists.

That 327 score includes gradients, transformations, webworkers, h.264, and other things. It does not include some api's for indexing and webcam. I believe they could be used for hacking purposes and until a secure implementation is proposed probably is best it doesn't include it.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:Do not what? by c0lo · 2012-08-07 22:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Worthless, ill-designed, junk.

Nooooo!?! Next thing you are going to tell me is that the hackers disregard RFC3514 during attacks???

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

Re:Do not what? by TheRaven64 · 2012-08-07 22:19 · Score: 4, Informative

You are missing the point of the header. It is something that is sent along with the initial HTTP request that expresses the user's desire. By itself, that's all it does. It can, however, be used in later legal proceedings. In the EU, for example, tracking someone after receiving an explicit opt-out is illegal. If someone can prove that you are tracking people who do not wish to be tracked then you are liable for large fines.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

How altruistic of them by DrXym · 2012-08-07 22:28 · Score: 2

A more cynical person might believe this is just a way for Microsoft to stick it to Google, Facebook etc, especially in tablet land. I'm sure the terms and conditions mean MS / Bing services are not so impeded by what it may or may not do with user data.

Re:How altruistic of them by thetoadwarrior · 2012-08-07 23:20 · Score: 1

Possibly but MS have invested in FB so why would they want to damage their profits?

Incompatible by jamesh · 2012-08-07 22:29 · Score: 2

This website is incompatible with the Do Not Track feature of your browser. Please disable the feature and hit refresh to try again.

Re:Incompatible by wmac1 · 2012-08-07 22:53 · Score: 1

There are millions of other websites. I normally close the page and no more visit the website if it tries to bully me (force me to disable AdBlock or force me to register before I can see the article ...)
Re:Incompatible by jamesh · 2012-08-08 01:01 · Score: 2

There are millions of other websites. I normally close the page and no more visit the website if it tries to bully me (force me to disable AdBlock or force me to register before I can see the article ...)
It hardly counts as a bullying tactic - if you refuse to pay the cover charge (eg watch a few ads) then you shouldn't be allowed in.
If a site asks me to turn off ad block or register (for a service I don't want to register for) then like you, I just go somewhere else, but I don't go around claiming they are bullying me.
Re:Incompatible by Bigby · 2012-08-08 03:24 · Score: 1

What if DoubleClick/AdSense sites require it. That would shut down a significant portion of the web.
Re:Incompatible by tlhIngan · 2012-08-08 03:50 · Score: 1

What if DoubleClick/AdSense sites require it. That would shut down a significant portion of the web.
Considering Google already does something similar for Google Analytics (Google owns DoubleClick, remember, so DoubleClick and AdSense are one and the same now) - i.e., it can require javascript to be enabled for GA, it's very possible that Google will require it. Most javascript blockers do implement stub functions to get around the click-tracking (it's been around a few years, but there's bound to be more).
Remember, DNT by default is basically a big gun pointed at Google (you think Microsoft doesn't know that Google through DoubleClick/AdSense/AdMob/etc own basically the entire online advertising and analytic market?).
And we know Google's really not beyond ignoring DNT anyhow, considering their past behavior. After all, Microsoft is threatening their core revenue source.
Re:Incompatible by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 09:12 · Score: 0

Happening already. Browse Google Groups with JavaScript on but cookies off and errors occur communicating with the server. However, the post headings load just fine. Do not track may already be in the process of trying to be broken, this is not just a bug.

Re:Do not what? by ledow · 2012-08-07 22:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

And the question of DNT being an explicit opt-out at all, or even getting to the remote server intact, is dubious.

If you pop up a message on the front page of a website that says "can we track you for the next week?" and the user says yes, but their browser is still pushing DNT, do you think the website should not track anything anyway? They have EXPLICIT permission to do so. And on a visible, obvious, user-controlled way, that the user COULD NOT IGNORE or forget, that can be easily seen by any idiot, rather than some obscure browser setting in only some browsers, that makes no visible change to the average user, and that may not ever be able to be tweaked by the user.

It's worthless, in law and in usage. And it doesn't express the user's desire if it is on by default and the user has to specifically turn it off. It just expresses the software manufacturer's desire (and, if as the article states, installs of Windows will have it on by default, it means even less in terms of what the user wants).

I'm not stupid, I doubt there are people who WANT to be tracked or wouldn't turn it on if they understand what it was supposed to do. But it doesn't. And never will. And saying that a hidden HTTP header that could easily be stripped by intervening proxy servers that don't understand it (and be untraceable as to WHERE that header got stripped off, and thus useless in court) overrides the explicit, visible, non-accidental obtained consent of users with an associated privacy policy available to them is just ludicrous.

There will NEVER be a court case about DNT usage on a website. Because it's not binding in *any* country at all and it certainly can't be taken as a revocation of previous consent (thus it is overrode by anything that the websites ALREADY have deployed to comply with EU cookie laws, for example) without a suitable legal precedent, which itself is somewhere incredibly unlikely and impossible.

Is DNT an opt-out for THIS session? This page? This browser? This IP? This logged-in-user? Forever? Does it override previous decisions? Does its absence override its prior presence (i.e. now you surf without DNT, we can take that as consent for all the previous sessions too?). It's so vague as to be absolutely pointless.

It *does not* do what it was designed for, helps no-one (not even advertisers or users), and is a ginormous waste of money to deploy for everyone involved (from browsers to users to websites to policy makers to the government to legal cases, etc.).

Wrong thinking by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-08-07 22:46 · Score: 1

If I race an olympic athlete, my result will suck.

If I race a dead person, my result will STILL suck even if I win.

You can be better then your competition AND still be crap. In the land of the blind, one-eye is king, but not automatically a great king.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:Wrong thinking by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 07:41 · Score: 0

You are comparing IE 6 with a modern browser. Thats not fair either. Ie 10 is nothing at all like IE 6. It might as well be from a different vendor as it behaves like every other browser now. IE no longer is horrible and its a good thing as its users wont switch as they would have done so already.

Dear rats... by Zemran · 2012-08-07 22:49 · Score: 1

...please do not leave the ship. The water entering the hull is a feature and nothing to worry about.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.

Re:Do not what? by Joce640k · 2012-08-07 22:51 · Score: 1

Yeah, I don't know what people are smoking these days, but you've got to be seriously delusional if you think that Do Not Track is going to be respected in any way.

They could pass a law.

That would mean the major advertisers would have to respect it, although all advertisers are sleazy by nature so they'll try to get around it by becoming even more sleazy than they already are.

--
No sig today...

Re:Do not what? by Ginger+Unicorn · 2012-08-07 22:52 · Score: 1

NoScript and Adblock alone won't stop people tracking you. You need to control cookies as well, and I'm not sure even that is enough. This plugin at least gives you a clue if you are being monitored

--
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons

Re:Do not what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-07 22:56 · Score: 0

It actually allows sites to finger print you more thoroughly by adding a bit more variance to settings (presence or absence of DNT).

Great browser? by gallondr00nk · 2012-08-07 23:11 · Score: 1

while MS is trying to position IE as a great browser again.

I can't remember anyone ever saying IE was great.

Re:Great browser? by marcello_dl · 2012-08-08 00:04 · Score: 2

When it had to beat netscape, Explorer was a good browser. If it ever manages to become relevant again, it will try to make it difficult for everybody else again. All corporations behave the same way, not all have the levers MS can pull, but that's a technicality.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Re:Great browser? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 03:27 · Score: 0

Maybe you're not old enough to remember IE4 through IE6 when they were new...they were actually pretty great at the time (alternatively, the competition was pretty crap at the time).
It's only when IE6 was left to rot and new competitors came out (and had multiple releases) that IE6 started looking bad in comparison.
Re:Great browser? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 06:22 · Score: 0

I heard someone say IE was great last night, it was however in a TV advert. Why the fuck is Microsoft advertising their web browser on TV anyway? They need to advertise a free web browser that comes installed by default on >90% of PCs (and won't run on the ones it doesn't come installed on), it doesn't make sense and makes me wonder what the fuck Microsoft is up to with IE, they really shouldn't give a damn what web browser people are using unless they are up to something dodgy.
Re:Great browser? by petermgreen · 2012-08-10 01:59 · Score: 1

Are you old enough to rememeber the great netscape rewrite in the late 1990s? Netscape 4.x was getting seriously outdated and netscape 6/mozilla was regarded as being slow. Contemporary versions of internet explorer (4-5) were regarded as being better. Sure the CSS support in IE was pretty poor but at the time noone cared because most of the the web at the time used table based layouts. Tabbed browsing hadn't been introduced in any mainstream browser yet.
However after the release of IE6 was released in 2001 IE stagnated. During over the next 5 years IE6 started to look gradually more and more outdated. As other browsers perfected their CSS support IEs remained broken.. As others introduced tabbed browsing to help users cope with the large numbers of websites that more modern computers could handle having open at once IE stayed at single page per window. As others introduced popup blocking measures to deal with intrusive advertisers and sites that exited purely to screw with users IE continued to let sites open whatever windows they wanted. Activex turned out to be a huge security mistake and requirements for controls to be signed and warning popups did not prove sufficient to put the security genie back in the bottle. MS gradually started to lose marketshare (though they remained the most common browser).
Finally faced with erroding marketshare MS started work on IE again and released IE7 in 2006 to try and catch up with the features offered by other browsers.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register

Good! by thetoadwarrior · 2012-08-07 23:17 · Score: 1

It's not enough to convert me to IE but of course it should be on by default. The only reason companies don't want that is because they know it'll never get switched on by most people.

Re:Good! by Ksevio · 2012-08-08 04:31 · Score: 1

But what's the point of having it if it's just going to be on for everyone? Might as well just make a do-not-track rule that advertisers should follow.
The problem is that much of the web is funded by advertising, so people blocking advertising (or making it less effective) means that sites will either shut down or need to charge customers/visitors in other ways.
Re:Good! by thetoadwarrior · 2012-08-08 09:26 · Score: 1

Then why not ask people as part of a new install (first use)? I think just having it as a setting that you have to know it's there is pointless. Most people don't want to be tracked I suspect.

I agree to an extent about advertising. I actually think advertising is in a way getting worse. There are two scenarios usually. One is no matter what you like you get those ugly ads about weight loss, nicer teeth or younger skin (the one that looks like grandma is peeling off a layer of flesh) or you see an ad for a product that follows you around and it's not necessarily something you want. Sometimes I look at things at Amazon I have zero intention of buying (ie co-workers and me looking at stupid cat playtoys) and then that shit sticks with forever. It's a wasted effort and just annoys you as Amazon or others then push things on you that you don't want.

Perhaps they're relying too much on tracking people.

Default assumptions by Kupfernigk · 2012-08-07 23:20 · Score: 2

Your argument does not necessarily follow. "Using a browser which has DNT set by default" could itself be taken as expressing such a preference. And in Europe we tend to see privacy as opt-out rather than opt-in.

Looking at Microsoft's business model, on the one hand you have companies like Google, Facebook (and many iOS apps) which raise money through advertising (advertising is a source of income) and Microsoft and companies like RIM which raise money through licensing fees and direct sales (advertising is a cost center). I am sure that Microsoft would like an Internet in which everything has to be paid for by the end user. And so, possibly, would Apple. Together, they outweigh the opposition.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

Re:Default assumptions by Chrisq · 2012-08-08 00:46 · Score: 3, Informative

And in Europe we tend to see privacy as opt-out rather than opt-in.
Are you living in the same Europe as me? Where your cars are regularly tracked by ANPR. Where many states have compulsory ID cards. Where communictaions companies have to install boxes to collect data for the government"
Not much "opt out" there.
Re:Default assumptions by makomk · 2012-08-08 01:10 · Score: 2

"Using a browser which has DNT set by default" could itself be taken as expressing such a preference.
When it's bundled as standard with the operating system installed on 95% of all PCs? That doesn't make much sense - it's not like most people use IE because they chose it over some other browser.
Re:Default assumptions by Kupfernigk · 2012-08-08 01:30 · Score: 1

I think you miss an important point here: the Government snoops but is expected to protect from commercial snooping. Someone will do it. Even in Switzerland, where it will be the neighbors. On the whole I tend to trust the State more than corporations.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Re:Default assumptions by Bigby · 2012-08-08 03:19 · Score: 2

That's weird. It is the complete opposite in the US. It is illegal for the government to snoop, but companies can track any information they want as long as they don't violate private property rights.
And I trust companies more than the State. The State can invade my privacy by force. The corporation requires me to divulge it voluntarily.
Re:Default assumptions by rtfa-troll · 2012-08-08 03:42 · Score: 1

That's weird.
I will admit that; in a continent with a history like that of Franko's Spain or the Stasi (note how I can do this without even giving a single entry for someone to Godwin this :-) ) it seems a bit wierd. However, the key thing you have to know is that the government can subcontract privacy invasion to private bodies and does that (e.g. in the USA, the FBI are regularly allowed to access data from credit bureau's which they would never be able to gather themselves) but, at least in Europe, it's illegal for all your data to be transferred in the other direction.
This means that, ignoring standard incompetence, it's possible to legally protect yourself from private industry whilst allowing the government to have your data but the other way round is impossible.
This is before you go into the fact that the state is under democratic control in a number of European countries whilst there's nowhere in the world where corporations are under proper control.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Default assumptions by rtfa-troll · 2012-08-08 03:43 · Score: 1

s/Franko/Franco/ ; sorry.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Default assumptions by Decker-Mage · 2012-08-08 05:42 · Score: 1

In the US, the state exists to serve the corporations and the corps express their control by whom they have paid in campaign donations, hiring of relatives, lining their pockets with de facto bribes in the form of perks, and sometimes outright bribery although in a form not directly detectable (usually). Remember Hilary Clinton and the cattle futures? Most recently, Nationwide providing very sub-prime mortgages? All that and more. Occasionally the government slaves are busted, usually only after completely pissing off someone in the corp world or in a war of the pawns. 'Duke' Cunningham is the most recent I recall but there were many others. When you see the FBI going after state and local reps, they've really pissed someone 'important' off.
In Europe and points farther east and south, it's the other way around. The French (Mercantilism) and the Russians are (have always been) the primary case-studies in political-economy. Corps exist to serve the state, just as in the royalist era, therefore even with the trappings of 'democracy', you'll find the best and brightest somewhere around the halls of power. In France they all go to school together. Don't get me started on what they do in Russia or China.
Now taken as a collective, you can trace who belongs to particular factions which is also pretty interesting. Clash of the billionaires is almost a sport.

--
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Re:Default assumptions by lilfields · 2012-08-08 09:15 · Score: 1

It is the complete opposite in the US. It is illegal for the government to snoop Let me introduce you to the PATRIOT Act (capitalized because it's an acronym) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act It's your patriotic duty to have no privacy.

Re:Do not what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-07 23:22 · Score: 0

Ah crap! I'll post AC until I get some mod points to bump you up. I love this RFC and it's the first thing that comes to mind whenever any idiot talks about DNT on the web.

Re:Do not what? by BeanThere · 2012-08-07 23:43 · Score: 1

Boy should you be glad you posted that comment as AC. Anyway, http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/dnt/

What is Do Not Track?

Do Not Track is a step toward putting you in control of the way your information is collected and used online. Do Not Track is a feature in Firefox that allows you to let a website know you would like to opt-out of third-party tracking for purposes including behavioral advertising. It does this by transmitting a Do Not Track HTTP header every time your data is requested from the Web.

Oh boy, STILL DEAD LAST by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-07 23:44 · Score: 0

IE 10 already has a score of 319 in html5test.com,

Wow, so they've shipped Windows 8 with a browser that's STILL DEAD LAST in terms of HTML5 support. Sure, it's a major improvement over IE9 and earlier - but making shit browsers for a decade doesn't suddenly turn the latest, less-shitty one into something great.

Doesn't matter by Sqr(twg) · 2012-08-07 23:48 · Score: 1

So every script that handles DNT will start with something like "if browser=="IE10" and dnt=="1" then dnt=null", treating IE users the same as any other user that did not set the DNT flag explicitly. No harm done, except to people who are savvy enougth to know about DNT and still use IE (and they really have nobody to blame except themselves).

Now, while we're on the subject, could browser makers please make the "Accept-Language" also default to null unless the user sets it explicitly? If I set it to "en-us", it means I actually want the English version of the page, but websites that check this header all assume that "en-us" means "left at default setting" and serve me the local language of the country I happen to be in. (The same thing as will happen with DNT on IE.)

Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 04:08 · Score: 0

Doing that opens the website owner to legal liability when someone with IE10 who doesn't want to be tracked gets tracked.
Plus, if people do that, it just shows what a sham the whole DNT plan was from the beginning (thanks, Google).

Yes but.... by Whiteox · 2012-08-08 00:17 · Score: 2

http://www.iegallery.com/en-US/trackingprotectionlists

Why doesn't anyone use these?
MS has given the ability to filter this stuff out already. Nobody looks though.

--
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!

Re:Yes but.... by jader3rd · 2012-08-08 02:36 · Score: 1

Do the tracking protection lists work in Metro IE?
Re:Yes but.... by Whiteox · 2012-08-08 03:09 · Score: 1

There's no reason for why they shouldn't.
Also, IE9 + tracking protection does work like an AdBlock of sorts. At least its an alternative to Firefox and that dastardly thing called Chrome.

--
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Re:Yes but.... by jader3rd · 2012-08-08 04:45 · Score: 1

The reason why I suspect Tracking Protection lists might not work in Metro IE, is because I have yet to see a way to configure them from the Metro IE.

DNT is the new Evil Bit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 00:21 · Score: 0

DNT is such a joke..... Makes me sad politicians do not understand why RFC3514 was posted on 1 april! I'm sure they could write much better laws if they did!

Do-nut track? by Hazel+Bergeron · 2012-08-08 00:23 · Score: 1

Is that like a mobile speed camera detection system?

Idiots by Azathfeld · 2012-08-08 00:24 · Score: 0

You can't implement a voluntary privacy feature as on-by-default. Everyone will just ignore it. Microsoft is run by hooting baboons who simply simulate the ability to run a large company through monkey-mimicry.

IANAL but there is a potential *big* problem by benjymouse · 2012-08-08 00:40 · Score: 1

if a site choose to ignore the DNT setting of IE10:

How can the site reliably determine whether the user behind the browser has actually explicitly taken the decision? If an online ad agency decides to ignore the DNT preferences of *all* IE10 users, they will invariably violate the right to not be tracked of a *number* of users.

This could easily land the advertiser in a serious conflict with the EU commision, and if found guilty of ignoring users' wishes they could end up with a *hefty* penalty - and face accumulating penalties until they change their behavior to respect the users.

In the US i guess that it could open up the advertiser to a class-action lawsuit - potentially even bigger then the EU fine.

No, some site on the Bahamas will probably give a damn. But Google - being the company that tracks most users and serves up ads - has *a lot* to loose on this.

--
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*

Do not track with OTHER TRACKERS in Win8! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 01:38 · Score: 0

I'm surprised the creepy aspect of Win8 isn't getting media attention. To use Metro apps, you need a Microsoft signon. Windows 8 is just a big attempt to monetize the Windows consumer user base by driving them to Bing and MS web services in order to monetize them.

So Microsoft doesn't want OTHER PARTIES to track their captive audience, hence this default setting. MS can already track people because they have to be logged on to Bing to use any Metro apps supplied in Win8.

Only sophisticated users would know how to create a local login (like Windows 7), and if you do that the Metro apps in the preview don't work.

Re:Do not track with OTHER TRACKERS in Win8! by benjymouse · 2012-08-08 02:52 · Score: 1

To use Metro apps, you need a Microsoft signon.

BS. You do not need to be logged in with a MS account to run Metro style apps.

--
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*

MS astroturfers downmodded everyone by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 01:40 · Score: 0

Looks like at least 2 of them. I rectified some of the damage before logging out.

Re:319? Well well well. by tuppe666 · 2012-08-08 01:48 · Score: 1

Basically 10 months behind does not make it ancient

Its an unreleased product, with a lead time of 18 months till the next one, it is massively behind on features available in released browsers now.

Bing Bar by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 01:50 · Score: 0

So how much do we want to bet it comes with Bing toolbar pre-installed with tracking built in there?

Adblocker by damicatz · 2012-08-08 02:11 · Score: 1

If the ad companies ignore Internet Explorer's DNT, then Microsoft should respond by adding an adblocker that blocks them.

This is actually a good business strategy for them :

1.It benefits consumers because they get an integrated adblocker and it establishes customer goodwill and a reason to upgrade IE.
2.It would seriously hurt Google. Microsoft's revenue from online advertising is peanuts; their profit is in their software. By contrast, Google's only real source of income is online advertising.

Microsoft is in the right by Stickerboy · 2012-08-08 02:26 · Score: 1

Thank you for looking after the consumer.

Do-not-track should be enabled by default. The problem is not that "it will be rendered worthless", the problem is that it IS worthless, currently. Do-not-spam-me-with-unwanted-telemarketers should be the default too. The reason the Do-Not-Call lists work is that there is legislative teeth behind them, not that it is opt-in. Do-not-track is a lame attempt at self-regulating to avoid regulation, a veneer of respecting privacy in an industry where the most profit is to be found by finding the most inventive ways of violating said privacy. Couple do-not-track with real economic penalties, and opt-in or opt-out, it will work.

I am more than happy to pay for services that I use and enjoy. I don't choose to pay for them in the form of digital stalkerati.

--
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Re:Microsoft is in the right by squiggleslash · 2012-08-08 03:27 · Score: 1

The principle purpose of user tracking technology is for the oh-so-evil reason that advertisers want relevant ads to be pitched.
That's it. Nothing more. Like virtually everything out there, it can be used for evil, but for the most part is used innocuously.
Now, before you cry and wail and say "Squiggie's evil, he just said it's OK for someone to watch me on the web like a lecherous prevert" I want you to consider the following:
- Do not track is a voluntary program by the industry.
- Tracking is usually inherently non-evil and actually potentially useful (if you're a nerd living in his parent's basement at the age of 45, would you prefer ads for AWESOME GADGETS or for ADAM SANDLER MOVIES?)
- Making tracking opt-in rather than opt-out will ensure DNT fails. If the majority of people are presenting a flag that they never even said they wanted, is there any moral mandate to take any notice of the flag? If we had a "Do not photograph in public" only-visible-in-IR-light symbol, and clothing manufacturers started putting it on every T-shirt, with most wearers blissfully unaware such a symbol is there, would there be any moral mandate to avoid taking photos of people with such T-shirts?
With me so far? Now, consider this: you decide that you've had enough. You are one of the 1% of IE users who knows what DNT is and actually want it sent, because you sincerely, honestly, don't want Google putting up ads that reflect your interests. You write to your legislator. "I actually have DNT turned on because I want it on!" you tell him, "And they ignore meeeeeeeeeeeeeee".
The result is likely to be legislation... that you don't want. The industry will point out that their tracking is useful. They will point out that it'll hurt capitalism(tm) if people avoid being tracked. They'll point out they don't share the data with anyone.
And the results will probably be: it'll be opt-in. It'll be strictly limited - the tracking flag can be ignored for political campaigns, by security agencies, and that corn farmers in Nebraska will get a $50 a bushell subsidy (riders suck.) You'll need to tell each organization that tracks you that they're not allowed to any more, by writing a letter to a posted address these organizations shall publish at the bottom of their website in a secure part of the site in a locked file called beware_of_the_leopard.html. They will have 28 days to comply, after which they will be legally obliged to not track you except where certain privacy conditions are met.
You know this. I know it. Angelina Jolie's dad knows it. That's the way it works.
DNT will be ignored if it's opt-out. And you'll never get a better deal than DNT if the industry has any say in it. And they will.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Microsoft is in the right by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 18:49 · Score: 0

would you prefer ads for AWESOME GADGETS or for ADAM SANDLER MOVIES?
Given that I only buy things when either ( 1 ) the old thing breaks beyond repair or ( 2 ) I need a new function fulfilled, my answer to your question is:
both those types of ad are equally irrelevant

Google will render this irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 02:30 · Score: 0

Looks like eventually the Goog's will offer free or nearly free internet to everyone, with the understanding that absolutely everything you do will be tracked and catalogged. My bet is nobody will care much about it.

Re:Do not what? by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2012-08-08 02:34 · Score: 1

They'll track anyway, and if they get busted, they'll call out the lawyer brigades and nothing will fucking happen.

More like:

They'll track anyway, and if they get busted, they'll say "Oh, that was an accident, we didn't do that on purpose, really". A couple people will sue, they'll throw a couple million to shut them up, while they count the tens/hundreds of millions of ad money they got for 'targetted ads'. Then they'll stop for a bit. Then they'll track anyway, ... and if they......

See Google, see Facebook - over and over again.

Re:Do not what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 02:36 · Score: 0

Yeah, I don't know what people are smoking these days, but you've got to be seriously delusional if you think that Do Not Track is going to be respected in any way.

They could pass a law.

That would mean the major advertisers would have to respect it, although all advertisers are sleazy by nature so they'll try to get around it by becoming even more sleazy than they already are.

Where I live we pass laws all the time to limit telemarketing and advertising. The people affected simply set up shop in the next state over (or just have some sort of phone redirect setup where they live in my state, but technically are calling from another), and do what they want anyhow. If we passed laws preventing something from being done, the affected would simply set up shop in a country that doesn't have the same laws.

score of 319? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 02:37 · Score: 0

My galaxy s 3 scored 380 with the default browser.

Screwing Google over by DragonWriter · 2012-08-08 02:49 · Score: 2

Or they hope it will screw Google over.

That's obviously the reason. The key point to keep in mind is that while Microsoft is going overboard with DNT-by-default, they also don't support DNT at all on their own sites, whereas Google does support DNT on their sites (and does so because DNT is supposed to be used as off-by-default, as an opt-out mechanism for tracking.)

IE going DNT-by-default means Google will either have to:
1. Abandon existing DNT support on their sites (leading to, at best, adverse PR, and possibly complaints of bypassing privacy controls in browsers that support DNT),
2. Use browser-sniffing to detect IE10 and ignore DNT from that browser (leading to similar consequences to the above, with perhaps a better PR defense, but possibly worse position with regard to regulatory complaints since they will be specifically targetting a particular competitors browser),
3. Be in a disadvantageous competitive position with firms (like Microsoft) that do tracking but do not respect DNT at all

This is rather directly aimed at Google.

Re:Screwing Google over by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 04:52 · Score: 0

And yet, Google Chrome doesn't support setting DNT. So, who is being disingenuous, here? (And yes, I do use Chrome regularly).
Re:Screwing Google over by Kalriath · 2012-08-08 11:58 · Score: 1

You seem to assert an awful lot that Microsoft themselves will not honour Do Not Track. Got any evidence of this?

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

I reaffirm "cannot track" here... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 03:02 · Score: 0

Several ways: Blocking tracker servers via hosts files, disallowing cookies & javascript (only used where I see fit which is online banking or shopping mostly, & ONLY where need it for functionality, nothing more - Otherwise it opens doors to malicious scripts @ times even in adbanners, see below)

Then, also by using Opera features like DNT options it has, not sending referring sites OR geolocation data to ones I am on now, & more... it works: I never get a "sick"/infected/infested system, period, & I certainly do NOT get tracked either (well, other than by ac trolls around here on /. that is, lol)!

FireFox NoScript & AdBlock + IE TPL's (tracking protection lists), + filtering DNS servers do the rest on other browsers along with Web-Of-Trust & Haute Secure (Opera) & general "system 'security-hardening'" -> http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000/XP%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=8H4iUMXuHuHa0QH5wIBQ by "yours truly"...

"Layered Security"/"Defense-in-Depth" is the way to go, and yes, it actually works...

* Now, you also just KNOW I'm going to post my "usual" on hosts files, so here goes:

I use hosts in the following ways (see my 'p.s.' below, in detail, for your reference) to COMPLIMENT & OVERCOME THE PROBLEMS IN DNS & OTHER MECHANISMS LARGELY!

Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):

---

1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites
2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware
3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use
4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers
5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content
6.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution)
7.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
8.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs)
9.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
10.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!)
11.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
12.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers - whereas the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself...)
13.) Blocking out TRACKERS
14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.

---

* & FAR more... read on below IF you are interested (for detail).

AND, for those of you that run Microsoft Windows 32 or 64 bit? An automated hosts file creation & mgt. program:

http://securemecca.com/public/APKHostsFileInstaller/2012_06_01/APKHostsFileEngineInstaller32_64bit.exe.zip

(You simply extract its files to ANY folder you like (usually one you create for it, doesn't matter where, but you MUST run it as administrator (simple & the "read me" tab shows how easy THAT is to do))

What's it do for you?

It's a custom hosts file mgt. program that does the following for end users (Calling it "APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++") after it obtains custom hosts fil

MS tracks, too -- and doesn't respect DNT by DragonWriter · 2012-08-08 03:13 · Score: 1

MS makes money by selling stuff, and then locking people in. Google for example makes money by advertisement, which made more valuable by tracking people.

MS also makes money by advertisement, though they've been less successful at it than Google. Of course, since unlike Google they don't respect DNT on the backend, their competitive position in advertising with respect to Google's would change if one of the major browsers went DNT by default so that Google wouldn't track its users, while MS would continue to.

As it happens, MS also happens to be a major browser vendor, and, surprise surprise, their browser is going DNT-by-default.

Re:MS tracks, too -- and doesn't respect DNT by Johann+Lau · 2012-08-08 07:09 · Score: 1

Of course, since unlike Google they don't respect DNT on the backend, their competitive position in advertising with respect to Google's would change if one of the major browsers went DNT by default so that Google wouldn't track its users, while MS would continue to.
Oh lol. God you're full of shit, aren't you. So MS = bad, Google = good? And the rest follows from there, since you just make it up? Good we discusses this. Anyone else want to have a go?

MS also makes money by advertisement, though they've been less successful at it than Google.

You might also say Google is making *some* money by something other than ads, but less successfully so than Microsoft or Apple or others who create actual products. But you'd have to stop drooling for a sec..
Re:MS tracks, too -- and doesn't respect DNT by DragonWriter · 2012-08-08 11:06 · Score: 1

So MS = bad, Google = good?

Bad or good don't figure into it. DNT by default in the client favors those people who make money on tracking (for instance, advertising vendors) that do not respect DNT on the backend, and gives them a competitive advantage against those people who make money by tracking that do respect DNT on the backend.
Microsoft is a firm that makes money by tracking and doesn't respect DNT on the backend.
Microsoft is also a major browser vendor, and is implementing DNT-by-default on the client.
Connecting the dots isn't hard.

You might also say Google is making *some* money by something other than ads
I might, but it wouldn't be relevant to discussion of MS's DNT-by-default-in-IE decision, since the way that Google is relevant, at all, to that is as one of the many people Microsoft competes against in the advertising space that does respect DNT on the backend. Google has other lines of business, but they aren't really relevant to the DNT discussion.

but less successfully so than Microsoft or Apple or others who create actual products.

In what way are Google Cloud SQL, Google Compute Engine, Google Apps, Google App Engine, Google Cloud Storage, Google Drive, and Google Fiber (just to pick a few of Google's paid, non-advertising, offerings) not actual products?
Re:MS tracks, too -- and doesn't respect DNT by Johann+Lau · 2012-08-08 11:18 · Score: 1

Microsoft is a firm that makes money by tracking and doesn't respect DNT on the backend.
You keep saying that, yet offer no arguments why MS doesn't respect it, while Google for example does. You cannot connect a dot you haven't even established yet, duh.
The only way to make corporations respect it on the back end is laws that get enforced.

Google has other lines of business
Technically true, but actually, in this conversation, that's just fucking sophistry.
http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/29/google-advertising/

In what way are Google Cloud SQL, Google Compute Engine, Google Apps, Google App Engine, Google Cloud Storage, Google Drive, and Google Fiber (just to pick a few of Google's paid, non-advertising, offerings) not actual products?
See above. Of course, feel free to go full retard and simply call advertising a product! That's technically correct as well, and would fit in perfectly.

Really? by Kupfernigk · 2012-08-08 03:40 · Score: 1

The corporation only has to tell the FBI you have caused them more than a certain number of dollars of loss, and they will come round and annoy you. Corporations simply pay the State to invade your privacy by force.

--
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."

Cookies, User Accounts, JavaScript by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 06:19 · Score: 0

How does a website abstain from tracking you, when it asks you to log in, and identify yourself with an e-mail address and more?

If a site sets a cookie, how can you draw any conclusion that include being "tracked".

What. Does this mean they'll start throwing their logs in the trash?

Doubtful. What if a crime is committed, and they could be held responsible if they don't document the behavior of their users?

Still violates the HTML5 standard by InvisiBill · 2012-08-08 07:32 · Score: 2

I said this in June, but it still stands (unless the draft standard has been updated, but I couldn't find anything). The latest draft of the standard states "[a]n ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user's explicit consent." Having it set by default, without any input from the user, violates that. That seems about as simple as you can get.

I agree with a lot of others. This voluntary DNT stuff doesn't really have any teeth. The only real reason for anyone to honor it is to avoid real regulation (which may or may not actually be enough to keep sites honest). However, enabling it by default will definitely ensure that advertisers do not honor it (at least for that browser). Advertisers will not voluntarily stop for all users of a certain browser based on a default browser setting (where the browser maker is the one deciding, rather than the user). I will admit that this leads to the question of whether or not they'd actually stop even if DNT is explicitly set by the user.

I still feel that a question during the IE first-run wizard is the best solution. MS can present the benefits and privacy implications of choosing whether or not to allow advertiser tracking, without any default value. The setting would be user-set regardless of whether they choose yes or no.

This could actually come back to hurt IE10 users overall. As other commenters have suggested, there's some gray area over what exactly constitutes explicit user consent regarding the setting. If IE10 sets this without any user intervention, advertisers have a not-totally-unreasonable excuse to ignore DNT from IE10, since it's a browser default rather than a user preference. An advertiser could continue to honor DNT for browsers where it is an explicit user preference, while ignoring it for only IE10 (in an effort to reduce ire toward them from DNT users without crippling themselves on all IE10 users). The IE10 users who actually want DNT may find that they can't actually use DNT, since advertisers assume it's just a browser default and ignore it. You end up with DNT working in Firefox, Chrome, etc. (when the user sets the preference) but not ever working in IE10.

DNT is a compromise between users and advertisers. Setting DNT as a browser default shoots that compromise in the face, making it almost expected for advertisers to stop honoring it.

This is similar to Microsoft's attempt to have IE8 render in standards-mode only if a special meta tag was included. This would allow IE8 to render old, broken sites with the old, broken rendering engine while new compliant sites would be rendered with the great new rendering engine (as long as the new page included the special tag to tell IE8 that it really, really, really meant that the code should be rendered as written). They're trying to achieve what end users really want, but going about it in the worst possible way. Is it really that hard to have one more screen asking the user if they want DNT or not? That would completely avoid the issue of whether or not it was an explicit preference set by the user, and pretty much dismiss all of the tech community's complaints. There's still the issue of whether or not advertisers would actually honor it, but that's an issue for all browsers in general.

Re:Still violates the HTML5 standard by Kalriath · 2012-08-08 12:58 · Score: 1

The HTML specification is irrelevant. The HTTP specification is the one that has the authority to dictate what a user agent may or may not do.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

Re:319? Well well well. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 10:47 · Score: 0

Basically 10 months behind does not make it ancient

Its an unreleased product, with a lead time of 18 months till the next one, it is massively behind on features available in released browsers now.

It is released right now for Windows 8. The hardware acceleration bit is optimized for WDWM 1.2 and Windows 7 uses 1.1 so after the backporting it will run on Windows 7.

Second HTML5test.com does not test for w3c proposals. It was what the authors think is cool. Third, the features Chrome and FF do implement are proprietary with -webkit and -moz flags in css and are not compatible with each other. In essence you need to write a site for webkit, firefox, and then IE. That is not good and no different than creating css hacks just for IE 6. The 138 score of IE 9 pretty much included all of the W3c proposal at the time.

Corporations use IE and do not want another IE 6 disaster of having w3c standardize on things different after IE 6 was released which is why they can't leave their crappy apps behind.

319 is 92% of Firefox's support! That is excellent. IE is on a 12 month release cycle and Windows 8 is why it was delayed. I prefer Microsofts release schedule than the 6 week hell Firefox has. Massively outdated describes IE 6,7,8 but it is a bit inaccurate to describe that to the latest.

This is great news for older users and corporations as they can now have a browser that doesn't suck and do not need to install FF anymore. People can use whatever browser they like but for me IE 10 is very close to Chrome and a heaven for webmasters. You can do good by encouraging users to upgrade as it is much easier to say upgrade your browser than to say nope boss lets give a finger to the largest browser marketshare on the planet.

Microshit is at it again by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 12:34 · Score: 0

Microsoft failed at online advertising and hates the web because it pirates its OS, so it tries to limit the web's revenue sources. The web's capitalism is far more benevolent than the operating system capitalism of unjailbreakable Apples, Murdochs and Win8s, and acts as a constant critic of it, but it does so because of its revenue sources. All those independant websites depend on this to counter only a few corporations handling the information we can use. What's at stake here is whether or not we return to the dystopia of 90s media. what's at stake here isn't privacy but our quality of life. It's not rocket science, just irony. Yet another demonstration of how we still haven't learnt that things usually don't mean what they claim.

Re:Do not what? by kat_skan · 2012-08-08 12:37 · Score: 1

I trust NoScript and Adblock, I sure as shit do not trust "we won't track you, we promise!"

You trust NoScript? I don't. Not since that incident a few years ago when the author deliberately crippled AdBlock for the express purpose of showing you content from the very ad networks you're worrying about here.

ITSATRAP by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 18:47 · Score: 0

or should I say ITWILLBEATRAP

Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-09 00:45 · Score: 0

I test DNT for a company that serves internet ads. The only thing this is going to do is make it harder for people to get ads that might actually be useful to them. No one is getting secret info from you, no one is looking at your bank acct or email or CC numbers and sadly that is what people think is being done. Instead the only info that will be received is where you are located (based on your IP, if you haven't blocked that as well) so I hope everyone enjoys non-targeted, worthless ads.

Microsoft is not helping by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-09 09:32 · Score: 1

Kudos to Microsoft for calling it like it is on this one.

Oh please. It was supposed to be opt-in. Advertisers could very well respect DNT as opt-in, because only a small minority would turn it on. And that minority is unlikely to click on ads in the first place. So the financial impact for advertisers would be negilgible, and they would get a PR boost.

But because of Microsoft, a significant number of web users, who were likely to click on ads, will have DNT by default. This makes it very expensive to respect DNT.

Let's hope the advertisers will simply disregard DNT when the UA indicates MSIE 10+.

This move by Microsoft is:
1) **ck Google
2) A PR stunt

Tag story antigoogle by INowRegretThesePosts · 2012-08-09 09:39 · Score: 1

I tagged the story antigoogle.
DNT was supposed to be opt-in. Advertisers would likely respect it, because only a small minority of users would enable it. And that paranoid minority does not click on ads in the first place. So the loss for advertisers would be negilgible, and they would get a PR boost.

But because of Microsoft, a significant number of web users, who were likely to click on ads, will have DNT enabled. This makes it very expensive to respect DNT.

Let's hope the advertisers will simply disregard DNT when the UA indicates MSIE 10+.

This action by Microsoft is:
1) **ck Google
2) A PR stunt

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Reaffirms Default Do-Not-Track For IE10, Windows 8 Express Setup

184 comments