Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IE8 Will Contain an Accidental Ad Blocker

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the inprivate-blocking dept.

Privacy 437

JagsLive sends in a Washington Post blog post reflecting on one privacy-enhancing feature of the upcoming Internet Explorer 8, the so-called "InPrivate Blocking" that has privacy advocates quietly cheering, and advertisers seriously worrying. Here is Microsoft's description of the feature. From the Post: "The advertising industry is bracing for trouble from the next version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, details of which were announced today, because it will offer a feature that blocks some ads and other content from third-parties that shows up on Web pages. A Microsoft spokesman said that the feature, to be known as 'InPrivate Blocking,' was never designed to be an ad blocker, though 'there may be ads that get blocked.' Instead, it was designed to stop tracking 'pixels' or pieces of code that could allow third-party sites to track users as they move around the Web."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They just don't get it do they (3, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748099)

The two are one and the same.

Re:They just don't get it do they (3, Insightful)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748111)

Doesn't it read a bit more like they're trying to block google analytics? Not that they're taking a direct shot at any particular company of course... maybe I'm just overly paranoid.

Re:They just don't get it do they (4, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748131)

Paranoid. Microsoft. One of these words is redundant.

I know! I know! (5, Funny)

Tawnos (1030370) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748405)

words?

Re:I know! I know! (5, Funny)

Negatyfus (602326) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748749)

redundant?

Re:I know! I know! (5, Funny)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748815)

redundant?

Re:They just don't get it do they (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748291)

Sounds good to me. Whenever I see web page load slowly, I can see "connecting to google analytics..." in the status bar of Opera. If Opera had an option to block that and the other analytics/advert script sites I'd be happy. The odd thing is that most banner ads either load fast or don't block the site displaying. In any case, I've learnt to ignore them so I don't bother to block them.

Google analytics on the other hand really annoys me.

Re:They just don't get it do they (4, Insightful)

the_womble (580291) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748313)

Blame web masters who put the Google Analytics javascript in the header, instead of the bottom of the page. Yes, Google did recommend the former years ago, but it was a bad idea and they changed their recommendation years ago.

Re:They just don't get it do they (0)

oobayly (1056050) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748409)

If by header, you mean , it's probably because that's where Javascript should be kept. All my webpages validate as xhtml strict, and placing the tag in is the only way for it to validate.
But then most of Google's suggested code doesn't validate. I'm still not sure if you break their TOS by tidying it up.

Re:They just don't get it do they (0)

Tim C (15259) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748827)

I think you messed up your <head> tags.

Stay, uh, evil, Microsoft. (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748517)


Amen to that.If Microsoft want to help me keep the ever encroaching tentacles of Google at bay for a little longer, then more power to them. Yes, it's Microsoft, but Microsoft is a huge entity. I'm sure it has capacity within its big fat employee base for acts that are both beneficial and detrimental to the community. I'm happy to cheer them on when they do something I approve of (so far, that's just Windows XP, Excel (pre-2007) and this, but I'm sure there must be other things).

Re:They just don't get it do they (3, Funny)

salmonmoose (1147735) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748351)

Ok, it's not just me that thought that then. Does this mean that when IE8 is released, we'll all see a drop Internet Explorer users, and can stop supporting their browser because it's insignificant?

Re:They just don't get it do they (5, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748901)

I think the opposite... If IE8 had some really good anti-advertising stuff then I would be REALLY happy.

I am not against advertising, but I am against adverts that:

1) Suck up 50% of my CPU.
2) Make noise even though I don't want them to.
3) Decide to every now and then pop over my reading or viewing area.

I do click on adverts, and still want adverts, but I want adverts to behave like newspaper adverts!

Re:They just don't get it do they (4, Interesting)

jaiyen (821972) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748391)

Doesn't it read a bit more like they're trying to block google analytics? Not that they're taking a direct shot at any particular company of course... maybe I'm just overly paranoid.

I don't think so. Google Analytics tracks many visitors to the same site, whereas this seems to be aimed at preventing tracking of the same visitor to many sites. In the MS blog it says it'll prevent the same cookie tracking you across more than 10 sites. I think the implication is that it's bad for Adsense, Doubleclick and the like as they can no longer track you through third-party cookies on dozens of sites and build up an advertising profile of you that way.

Good for privacy of course, but as so much of the web is ad-funded is this really going to be good for the web as a whole ? I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.

I think it's interesting also that this is happening as Microsoft tries to become a bigger player in the internet ad business. They could use IE feature to their advantage here, as it'd be fairly easy for them to implement a scheme where all third-party cookies are limited, except for those of Microsoft and its "selected partners". Would we put it past them to do something along those lines ?

Re:They just don't get it do they (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748451)

Doesn't it read a bit more like they're trying to block google analytics? ... maybe I'm just overly paranoid.

127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 pagead2.googlesyndication.com
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 partner.googleadservices.com
127.0.0.1 localhost

Me too... I don't even trust my own machine

Re:They just don't get it do they (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748613)

they seam to be doing it in a sneaky way but overall this is probably a good move for users.
microsoft have given us a built in ad-blocker
google will push firefox more and hopefully come up with a more private way to track users ( like offering a flag to randomise cookies between sessions)

Re:They just don't get it do they (0, Troll)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748931)

If IE has a better adblocker, why would I use firefox?

I am using FireFox right now... I like Firefox, but if IE had a really good adblock I would be VERY tempted to move to IE.

Re:They just don't get it do they (2, Insightful)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748823)

On the contrary, it sounds like they get it perfectly

Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (4, Insightful)

lecithin (745575) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748101)

Anybody that really wants ad blocking can do it now. Most of the people that do want it don't use IE.

All that this changes is control of the ads that are shown in IE. Instead of some 3rd party ad, you will get an ad that is 'blessed' by microsoft (after the advertiser pays a fee to M$).

From Microsoft's decription:

"Have you ever wanted to take your web browsing "off the record"? Perhaps you're using someone else's computer and you don't want them to know which sites you visited. Maybe you need to buy a gift for a loved one without ruining the surprise. Maybe you're at an Internet kiosk and don't want the next person using it to know at which website you bank."

IE8 is supposed to solve all of that? Bullshit.

Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid?

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (2, Interesting)

extirpater (132500) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748133)

Patent clerk

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (4, Insightful)

zzatz (965857) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748181)

Microsoft thinks that using an Internet kiosk for banking is OK? Are they really that out of touch?

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (4, Insightful)

trashbat (976940) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748783)

Last year I spent about 3 months in Peru and internet kiosks were pretty much my only way of checking my account balance. I was running Firefox and ClamWin off a USB stick, and I changed my password constantly. Risky, but necessary.

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748855)

don't worry they will fix yuor banking in Vista Service Pack 2.

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748909)

If you use an external signing device, it suddenly gets more-OK. (The information shown might still contain account and card numbers, of course. But it's better by a long shot than just a password login.)

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (5, Interesting)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748221)

Actually no. I know plenty of non-computer people who I off hand mentioned ad blocking to. Generally the reaction is a stunned look followed by "you can do that?" and begging me to set it up for them. Most people don't even know it exists.

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (5, Funny)

T3Tech (1306739) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748281)

You can do that!?... with a browser?

And all this time I've been blocking ads to all the machines on my network with a squid proxy... oh wait

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (1)

Artuir (1226648) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748757)

Squid proxy? Didn't they have those in the Matrix??

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748589)

That's true. The trick is don't be talking about security, or start talking about security. Or simply recommend ad blocking out of the blue. Keep it off-handed. The classic geek "blah-blah-Lassie-blah-blah" just spooks them. They're happy to learn ads can be blocked. Say "heck yeah" and simply show them how, end of explanation. Continue to build trust like that and they /might/ be able to handle security advice from you after two years.

But you know, don't. I don't want ad blocking to be commonplace. That'll just cause ads that are harder to block for the rest of us, and it'll make it much less likely that the greater populace will become suprised and outraged enough about uncontrolled user-tracking to demand legislation. And finally start to wonder about the lack of relevant privacy legislation for the modern world in general.

The BT debacle is kinda the start of that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7438578.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748791)

Unfortunately this is the way to handle beneficial things. Keep them low. Ad blockers are fantastic. However the more people use them, the less effective they will get. Advertisers will fight blockers if the get too well known. As long as there is a large enough user base to support the development of ad blockers, that at the same time is small enough not to draw too much attention, it's perfect.

It's the same with Firefox. The more attention and big money support it gets, the more it will go down the drain because it has to cater investors and feature hungy masses.

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748227)

It cleans out new cookies and browsing history, and prevents third-party tracking images. What more can you get for personal privacy?

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (5, Funny)

Alumoi (1321661) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748417)

Firefox?

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748299)

IE8 is supposed to solve all of that? Bullshit.

Ah, but they don't say it will. That quote justs asks if you worry about these things. And hopes to get you nervous if you're not already. What IE8 will do is described farther down in more concrete but less example-specific terms.

So yes it's bullshit, but it's sculpted to look like a duck.

It'll be interesting to watch the lawsuits from people busted by proper forensics. Would MS get off via the standard EULA boilerplate for product liability?

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748337)

Firstly, this isn't strictly ad blocking, as you'd know if you RTFA, it just has the potential to upset advertisers.

Secondly, IE already has ad blocking, and has had since XP SP2, which was.......a long time ago; so don't confuse this with the former. And saying people who use IE don't want ad blocking is naive at best, if you surveyed web-users, I wonder how many would be appreciative of the ability to block pop-ups/banner-ads/etc...? Yes, you're right, LOTS. Saying IE users frequently might not have the technical knowledge to go out and find a solution to their advertising related woes may be more truthful, but that's not what you said.

Thirdly, what the hell are you talking about paying fees to Microsoft? Stop fucking trolling. This has nothing to do with paying fees to MS at all. The closest I can find is InPrivate Subscriptions, but once again, if you RTFA, you'd see these Subscriptions can be created by anyone, not just MS, assuming MS even chooses to create one, which the article doesn't mention. In fact, these subscriptions are just "RSS feeds of Regular Expressions that specify sub-downloads to block or allow", that even YOU could create and distribute to other IE users. So yes, what with MS controlling all RSS feeds created across the internet, this definitely is going to go straight to their bank accounts.

So, to summarise, what exactly are YOU drinking?

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (1)

lecithin (745575) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748415)

Beer my friend, just beer and not the cool-aid.

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (1)

AceofSpades19 (1107875) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748437)

where is this mythical adblocker in IE 6?

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (1, Informative)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748745)

http://www.ie7pro.com/ [ie7pro.com]

Despite the name, it works in IE6 and IE8 beta 1.

It's a rather big extension that slows down IE launch because it also does a bunch of other things (inline find, spellchecking, etc.).

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748455)

Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid?

The people who would use this feature to browse random websites for interesting pictures.

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (2, Interesting)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748485)

This is classic from TFA;

Consider this hypothetical example. You walk into a shopping mall. In the middle of the shopping mall, there is someone in front of a kiosk who asks you if he can record what stores you visit while you're there as part of a survey. In order to do so, he writes down a description of what you look like - not your name - but what you're wearing, your height, etc. In several of the stores throughout the mall, there are people who identify you based on this data, and record whether or not you visit a particular store. When the mall closes, the surveyors in the store report their tallies back to the kiosk. What the surveyor ends up with is a list of some of the stores you visit while you're at the mall."

How, in dogs name does he think they price mall space. I must admit though, it's a great analogy, they don't ask you on the web either!

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (3, Insightful)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748811)

In the middle of the shopping mall, there is someone in front of a kiosk who asks you if he can record what stores you visit while you're there as part of a survey.

Not a great analogy, MS; you should mention that tracking cookies never ask permission.

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (3, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748547)


Yes, we can all do this ourselves either with the appropriate browser software and settings or at a network level. But don't you see? If Microsoft are billing this as a feature for the next IE, then it means this sort of stuff is reaching mainstream consciousness. And it's about bloody time. Good for M$, for once!

Re:Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid? (2, Interesting)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748933)

I'd go one further than that. If IE8 blocks this automatically, then this type of cookie will become pretty much obsolete.
Of course something will spring up to replace it.

Third parties, hmm? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748113)

A third party like... Google?

Step right up (3, Interesting)

icsx (1107185) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748143)

Get your own accidental ad blocker right now! We will block some of the ads (Google) but our own stay!

Re:Step right up (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748639)

didn't microsoft say that their email spam blocking would allow sanctioned, but still unsolicited, emails from certain trusted parties to get through?

Since my hot mail account exists purely for the microsoft passport thing, I don't know if the account gets this sanctioned email or not.

Firefox Anyone? (5, Informative)

fishyfool (854019) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748149)

Install Firefox, whack in AdBlock , NoScript, and FlashBlock and you have more privacy and security than with IE.

Re:Firefox Anyone? (5, Informative)

rm999 (775449) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748389)

I think you mean Adblock Plus... Adblock hasn't really been updated for about 4 years

I've found all I need is Adblock Plus with a subscription to "EasyElement+EasyList"

Re:Firefox Anyone? (4, Insightful)

utnapistim (931738) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748469)

That's what I thought also: in other words, IE will provide part of the functionality of NoScript and AdBlockPlus, starting from version 8.

Of course, they couldn't market it as such: it would be harder to plaster "innovation" all over it.

Marketing spin aside, this is good news: since most people still use IE, it's good that this should increase the privacy level for everyone (if implemented right, that is).

Re:Firefox Anyone? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748665)

Umm, yeah, and you might find that 60% of your websites don't work.

Re:Firefox Anyone? (1)

Saint Gerbil (1155665) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748843)

This sounds like it will be similar. Its quite interesting since Firefox could not allow a built in ad-blocker and IE has an accidental built in one. It sounds to me like they are addressing the needs of the user with out trying to piss off the advertising industry. TBH the advertising and tracking industry have put in some nasty tricks over the years so it serves them right that users have the chance to block them till they sort out their practaces.

Re:Firefox Anyone? (2, Insightful)

Technician (215283) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748949)

Install Firefox, whack in AdBlock , NoScript, and FlashBlock and you have more privacy and security than with IE.

This is in addition to a good DNS and hosts file.

FYI (heads up) Privoxy (4, Informative)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748169)

Re:FYI (heads up) Privoxy (3, Interesting)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748703)

I think this is the first time I've seen someone mention privoxy among the dozens of adblock posts.

I run privoxy on a separate machine so that it's available to every computer on my network, thereby minimising the need for installing Firefox extras. And while I'd recommend it highly (definitely a plus for over-burdened laptops when it's running elsewhere), it doesn't seem to the same job as adblock when it comes to an ad-free webpage. The Slashdot site, for example, renders with the right column being pushed down quite a distance leaving a gaping whitespace. It can be a tough choice sometimes: soul-sucking advertising, or existential emptiness.

Re:FYI (heads up) Privoxy (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748845)

Privoxy is open source so I thought I'd post it, more people that can make it better the better. The only way people are going to know it exists is exposure. The only thing it really needs is an easy to use GUI front end I think in terms ease of custom configuration.

hmmmmmm.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748189)

So if MSIE will block ads,
Firefox can block ads,
Opera/Safari?

If devices like the Wii & iPhone use opera or safari, and they don't block ads, it looks like there will still be ads for the people that deserve them :)

Disclaimer: I'm typing this on my macbook - which seems to have nearly fallen apart - I'm not a happy macbook owner.

Re:hmmmmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748277)

Opera is the only one at the moment that has an ad blocker built in.

Re:hmmmmmm.... (1)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748303)

Opera has had Right-Click>Block Ad for quite some time. Admitidly, it doesn't have built-in support for adblocking lists, like IE8 and FF plugins do.

Re:hmmmmmm.... (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748527)

sorry i havent used opera for years but how is block ad different from Right-Click>Block images from *

Mayb it has an "accedent"... (1, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748195)

Then again, it might just "accedently" dissapear from the final build...

who do advertisers think they are? (4, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748261)

back in the early days of the web, if a website was 500k in TOTAL is was large. now days chewing 10 megs on a single site is nothing, most of it is ads and very little content. all of this is paid for by us, without our permission. so what if a website is offering free content in exchange for banner hits, they don't ask me if i'd like to be tracked and bombarded with ads for the pleasure of it first do they, in fact i'm pretty sure if websites started placing a front page stating you had to unblock ads and allow 50 doubleclick cookies to be placed not many people would visit them. So cry me a fucking river if they go broke from all the ad blocking.

Re:who do advertisers think they are? (3, Funny)

finity (535067) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748359)

Stop your whining. Your "10 megs" of ads example is ridiculous. Use lynx if you're just dying for the old days.

Next you'll be shouting for us to get off your Internet, darn kids.

Re:who do advertisers think they are? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748563)

Well I for one still find a use for lynx. One of my biggest pet peeves in Javascript.

Re:who do advertisers think they are? (4, Insightful)

nitroamos (261075) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748433)

From the perspective of companies, they consider that your eyeballs on their ads is a fair trade for giving you access to their content. If they provided you with an opt-in model for advertising, we agree, their revenue stream would collapse and they'd cry. Then their content would disappear, and you (average population) would cry.

It's silly to expect them to give you content and get nothing in return. If your view was purely principled, you wouldn't go to their sites, and then you don't have to worry about it.

Re:who do advertisers think they are? (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748787)

So cry me a fucking river if they go broke from all the ad blocking.

Note that the following comment doesn't apply to popup ads, popunders, obnoxious noisy Flash applets, etc, but:

You know that Simpsons episode where Homer and Lisa are going to the museum and Homer starts taking the piss out of the voluntary $5 donation? Then Lisa's teacher comes along and he starts telling him he doesn't have to pay either, and laughing like a selfish moron?

That's the way I see people who gleefully tell the world to use Adblock. Do you want to be like that?

Re:who do advertisers think they are? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748867)

back in the early days of the web, if a website was 500k in TOTAL is was large

And back in the day I was browsing with a 33.6kbps modem; now I have an "up to 8Mbps" ADSL connection (really about 2.5 thanks to my shitty phone line).

What's the point of having a connection 75x the speed (costing less than half what I was paying in phone bills) if nothing uses it? (Not defending ads here by the way, but things like Google maps would have been largely unusable on dial up)

now days[sic] chewing 10 megs on a single site is nothing, most of it is ads and very little content.

I have two points to make on this:

a) 10MB is 20x 500KB; even my crappy phone line gets me 75x the speed of my old modem, so that site is still loading in less than a third the time of the old one

b) I don't believe that figure anyway; do you have any real numbers to back that assertion up with?

Google anylitics killer! (4, Insightful)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748319)

This has far reaching implications for all browsers. If you can't track a huge portion of the pie using google/yahoo analytics then it makes no since using 3rd party tracking software. The user in me cheers, the site administrator in me cringes.

Re:Google anylitics killer! (1)

grendel03 (926696) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748587)

At that point you'll have Microsoft analytics, which will go beyond that and tell you if your users are using a *genuine version of windows. This is of course all in the name of copy right protection so Microsoft can determine if you're providing a safe haven for pirates and other OS deviants...

Re:Google anylitics killer! (2, Interesting)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748681)

This has far reaching implications for all browsers. If you can't track a huge portion of the pie using google/yahoo analytics then it makes no since using 3rd party tracking software. The user in me cheers, the site administrator in me cringes.

That's why I've gone back to parsing the Apache logs. It really contains 99% of what you need: the user agent and referer. As I design for 800-1680 width screens, the user screen size does not matter to me. I use the referer to know who's linking to me, what keywords they searched from, and to know if this is a new session or not. If there is no referer then I set a cookie to track session.

The apache logs are great, and really include most of the info one needs. Tip: if you can host non-html pages (css, js, images) on a subdomain then it makes the parsing a lot easier. You don't want to account for files that were included in another page.

Re:Google anylitics killer! (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748905)

Well I for one have been blocking google analytics for a while, as I got tired of the number of times I've been sat looking at a blank white tab with a "wating for google-analytics.com...." message in the status bar.

Really smart browser (5, Funny)

suck_burners_rice (1258684) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748323)

This program won't block all ads. It will just block those ads that are geared towards non-Microsoft products! Furthermore, this browser will be smart enough to actually rewrite ads on the fly. So an ad for a Linux cluster will appear as an ad for a cluster running 10,000 licensed copies of Windows Vista Enterprise. I think everyone will be happy about this.

Re:Really smart browser (1)

phagstrom (451510) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748879)

An adware adblocker...There's an idea.

"Blocks ads and it's FREE...*".

* you only need to watch a few automatically generated messages from our sponsors

But will it block the intrusive, pop-over ads? (2, Interesting)

AmericanPegasus (1099265) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748339)

If IE8 either accidentally or purposefully blocks the intrusive pop-over ads that float over a website's content (what scatter brained nut actually looks at a finished product with such an ad and goes, 'yep, our reader base won't be utterly pissed when this happens') then I think I might just be a full convert to IE8's camp. Now I realize that other web browsers may have that functionality now, but super-mainstream-government-institutions (like this here Air Force) will never allow any browser but Internet Explorer on their computers, so I have to silently hope...

Re:But will it block the intrusive, pop-over ads? (1)

slash.duncan (1103465) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748891)

Actually, the entire fact that you're complaining about it means not enough are POed about it to make a difference. Maybe slightly perturbed, but not enough to have them looking for blockers or to keep them from coming back.

And you're part of the problem, not the solution, since if you're complaining about it, you obviously go back to the sites often enough for it to be a big deal to you. While it's possible you can't load privoxy or the like, or firefox, and block the popovers that way, you can certainly choose not to visit the site again, and if enough people did that, the problem would disappear, either because the abusive sites went under, or because they changed their ways, one or the other. That it isn't happening indicates that too few people actually care about it to do something about it, either by blocking or by going elsewhere for the content, and if you are one of the people continuing to figuratively take it up the ass crosswise and going back again and again for it, you're part of the reason those sites continue to exist!

Obviously... (2, Insightful)

KlausBreuer (105581) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748353)

...there will be lots of comments along the lines of "Hey, I use Adblock Plus, it's good!".

I'll admit that I more or less forgot about advertising on the 'net, and was quite horrified when I saw somebody browsing without an ad blocker. The screen was crammed with idiotic messages, stupid images, blathering animations. The net actually looks completely messed-up, swamped in advertisements (most of them obviously created by waaaay-below-average-IQ people).

Sheesh, am I glad I found an ad blocker. Blocking some data actually makes the net more useful (as long as it isn't the state defining what is to be blocked).

Adblockers = theft (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748379)

Using AdBlockers is theft anyway. Ever wondered why those internet services are free?

Maybe it's just the minority that doesn't know how to dose ads on their page or the ones that blow up pages to serveral megs with their ads that forces some people to use those adblockers

I agree (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748393)

It's almost as bad as going to the bathroom during commercials when you're watching tv!

Re:I agree (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748885)

It's almost as bad as going to the bathroom during commercials when you're watching tv!

If the advertisers prefer, I guess I could pee in a bottle and post it to them.

Re:I agree (1)

goose-incarnated (1145029) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748919)

Or, steal ideas from idiocracy

Re:Adblockers = theft (4, Insightful)

XedLightParticle (1123565) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748541)

Ads are theft too, with all their flash, sound and graphics, it costs more to watch the ads than the content if you're on a pay per byte subscription.

So it's fair to place all kinds of heavy and annoying ads, if people are just free to block those that gets too expensive or annoying. Action equals reaction, it's up to the ad-funded to find a profitable business model, including a sensible advertising policy that does not encourage visitors to block. If visitors block your ads, your product was not worth paying for anyway.

Alright I do know that blockers like ABP simply blocks everything and I gotta admit that may be unfair, but on the other hand, the majority of ads online are excessive, so the ones i feel sorry for are the minority who actually have a sane advertising policy.

Re:Adblockers = theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748667)

Your ISP doesn't charge you? Where do you live, and what do I have to go through to sign up with them?

(Yes, I understand that the ISP and content makers are different people - but pay TV only charges me once, I'm only charged once for groceries and I sure as hell don't pay twice for petrol. Besides, if ads weren't so obtrusive these days, maybe AdBlockers wouldn't be so popular. Users didn't fire the first salvo, so website operators shouldn't come crying when they're losing.)

Re:Adblockers = theft (3, Insightful)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748839)

No, it's not. They have the right to advertise, but they don't have the right to force me to look at their ads. I'm still free to ignore them all I want.

Advertisers: no need to worry. (2, Insightful)

cheros (223479) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748483)

The giveaway is the word "subscription" - Apple got itself a slice to mobile phone revenue by means of the iPhone, MS is trying it again with ad revenue now the Yahoo deal fell through (who do you think will feel ad blocking most? (OK, "selective" ad blocking, I'm willing to bet it won't take long before the "trusted partner" scam will show up)*.

I suspect that that "possibility" will become mandatory to "maintain browsing security". You're welcome to it. Just a quick reminder: Automatic Updates led to the WGA disaster, so I wouldn't invest *too* much trust in it.

And remember: these are just tools - they are not an excuse to avoid using your brain.

*: I may be harsh here, but it's not like we're talking about a sterling track record here. I believe it when I see it.

Re:Advertisers: no need to worry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748947)

Its entertaining to see how paranoid the FOSS zealots are. Microsoft doesn't even need to hire people to fuck with you. Your paranoia will keep you nice and limber.

Oh and just in case I forget, are you from the 0.125% of the market or 0.2354%? I want to assign proper significance to you..

Cheers !

Does it bother anyone else? (2, Interesting)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748511)

Not just the new IE8 blocking, but all forms of ad blocking? Seems unfair to destroy the business models of so many websites. Maybe it's just me, but ads on sites like Digg or Slashdot don't even remotely bother me. Who am I to block their ads when I'm receiving free content?

I admit I do run a site myself and this sort of thing worries me. I have just two ads per page, both google ads, one leaderboard and a wide skyscraper. They aren't even remotely intrusive, and are there just to pay the bandwidth bills. For those complaining about bloated sites, my biggest page is just 10k without the ads. I'm currently a long way away from being affected by this, as 90% of my users are still using IE6, but it does concern me that I might have to shut down a free service because people can't handle two ads.

I know things like adblock are designed for really intrusive ads like those obnoxious animated overlays, but the problem is reasonable ads get blocked as well.

I wonder if there is any legal recourse for sites like Digg or companies like Google who are hurt by this sort of thing. Especially Google, as I highly doubt this whole thing is an "accident".

Re:Does it bother anyone else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748591)

Not really. If it pisses off enough people it's not going to take long before people will start looking for ways to detect visitors that block their ads (which isn't hard) and divert them away from their content to a page that suggests they change their setting before coming back. And I'd say that's their good right too.

Re:Does it bother anyone else? (1)

Elldallan (901501) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748771)

Yes and then the people on the other side will find a way to block the ads in a manner that is harder to detect. As long as the advertisers insist on using intrusive/tracking ad systems there will be an armsrace over this issue.

Re:Does it bother anyone else? (1)

magusnet (951963) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748775)

While it should be the right of every user to block ads and/or other content they deem unnecessary or offensive, to have corporations or governments setting standards is just another form of censorship and Internet bias.

What is to stop ComCast, Qwest, or Verizon from starting to block or filter the content we surf?

--magus
(see my other post on this thread for the flip side of this argument.)

Re:Does it bother anyone else? (1)

Gresyth (1103851) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748675)

but ads on sites like Digg or Slashdot don't even remotely bother me

Slashdot has ads? I guess my host file is working well.

Re:Does it bother anyone else? (1)

Elldallan (901501) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748753)

You should not blame those that create these services since there is obviously a demand for them. You should be blaming the people that makes the ads that drives the people to go to these measures.

Yes there is probably a legal recourse unless the system is opt-in which according to the article this system is then I don't see what they could do against it as the user actively requested it, I am not a lawyer though.

Hopefully this development will drive site ads towards textads and regular image ads without tracking capabilities. Getting rid of overlay ads, flashing gif animations and flash ads and every other intrusive/tracking advertisements will make the internet a better place.

Re:Does it bother anyone else? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24748781)

Seems unfair to destroy the business models of so many websites.

If they get destroyed by ad blocking, then their business models are flawed.

They can send me whatever they please, but I am free to filter out anything i don't want displayed.
I'm under no obligation to view the page as they served it. Hell I'm not even obliged to actually view it after downloading.

Re:Does it bother anyone else? (1)

temcat (873475) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748895)

Someone who blocks ads isn't going to click them anyway.

Not me (1)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748913)

Maybe it's just me, but ads on sites like Digg or Slashdot don't even remotely bother me. Who am I to block their ads when I'm receiving free content?

Considering that I'm also -providing- content, I don't feel too bad.

Slashdot would be nothing special without the comments...

MS are hypocrites (2, Insightful)

fatphil (181876) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748621)

Follow the link to MSDN. Check the images it serves you:

http://c.microsoft.com/trans_pixel.aspx?TYPE=PV&r=http%3a%2f%2fslashdot.org%2f

Yes, it's a transparent 1x1 pixel GIF.

Re:MS are hypocrites (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748685)

That's not third-party.

Re:MS are hypocrites (2, Interesting)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748817)

It's not hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if they said "transparent 1x1 pixel GIFs are evil and we're here to put a stop to them". If you RTFA, they say instead (paraphrased), "we think you normally want to allow transparent 1x1 pixel GIFs to track your data, but for the rare occasion when you don't such as [list that conspicuously does not include porn surfing], here's a mechanism to maintain your privacy.

I see a lot of MS bashing already (3, Insightful)

bytesex (112972) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748657)

But when you read an article about it, it seems perfectly reasonably stuff; 'sandbox' your session against cookie- and form-storage, block annoying trackers - all part of the standard browser ! There's no pretense of 'total security and/or anonymity' here, people, so stop whining.

damned if they do, damned if they don't... (4, Interesting)

magusnet (951963) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748707)

I can barely contain the mixed feelings I have over this issue and some of the juvenile responses. Right now I more annoyed with the Linux/Open Source/EFF advocates that can't give a simple acknowledgment to a step forward of the end-users' protection and privacy IE8 may.

One thing I can say before going back to replaying Halo 2 on my now decommissioned Beowulf cluster is, "Good job Microsoft for trying to protect 75+% of the worlds Internet users".

I am personally grateful that the users of our 1000+ Linux, Solaris, BSD server farm are better protected.

Let's remember there is no such thing as a free lunch. Some where, some how, the bill must be paid. Until socialism or communism govern the Internet some level of commercial advertising will need to be tolerated in order to pay the bill in order to keep the "lights and water" running.

--magus
(not to be confused with magu$)

Privacy First (1)

labmonkey09 (992534) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748735)

Whatever the reason for doing this, IT IS what consumers wants, more privacy. Gives the consumer what he wants, screws your comp, totally legal - nice!

The Microsoft Website (2, Interesting)

sekander94 (1209814) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748917)

Typical Microsoft. IE8's webpage (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/ie/ie8/default.mspx) has two versions of its banner, just to underline one piece of text. If this is how the product itself works, then this will be one hefty download

That's not really a surprise is it? (5, Funny)

uebernoob (1351439) | more than 5 years ago | (#24748929)

A Microsoft Ad Blocker that only works by accident.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?