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!

Playing Around With Tracking Protection In IE9

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the accessing-the-defences dept.

Internet Explorer 138

Roberto123 writes "I have tried out the Tracking Protection feature in the coming Internet Explorer 9 browser from Microsoft. While the feature does effectively block ads from Web sites, I'm not yet convinced that giving the users the options to select content to 'Block' or 'Allow' will be that effective."

cancel ×

138 comments

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

Guess what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35334844)

I don't give a shit what you think. #firstpost

Better than not having it (1)

Lunoria (1496339) | more than 3 years ago | (#35334848)

Getting rid off all the crappy and misleading ads is a plus for IE 9. TFA was vague if it was turned on as default or not. Even if people will have to turn it on, they might realize the benefits.

Re:Better than not having it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35334934)

Getting rid off all the crappy and misleading ads is a plus for IE 9. TFA was vague if it was turned on as default or not. Even if people will have to turn it on, they might realize the benefits.

Microsoft's customers are generally not known for realizing that there are options let alone configuring them to suit their tastes. They're a bunch of mindless sheeple who think that a powerful general-purpose computer is an appliance like a dishwasher or microwave. Why else would they buy Microsoft? How else could default settings have such a strong impact on the experience of most users?

Re:Better than not having it (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35334966)

I would say that most people think of a Computer with Internet the same as Television.
If I just watch content then how could I get a virus? I was just watching!
I have to agree with them at the most fundamental level.

Re:Better than not having it (3)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335002)

I would say that most people think of a Computer with Internet the same as Television.
If I just watch content then how could I get a virus? I was just watching!
I have to agree with them at the most fundamental level.

The difference is that television is one-to-many communication and fundamentally one-way.

The Internet is many-to-many communication and fundamentally two-way.

The people who fail to recognize the difference and the implications of that difference are simply wrong. Fundamentally wrong, if you like. The fact that assuming security doesn't matter is a sure way to get 0wned is a very strong argument against them. I am all for advocating what someone believes is an ideal expectation, but not when it contradicts the manifest reality. Then it's just ignorance. Ignorance is not and has never been a solid foundation for good decision-making.

Re:Better than not having it (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335686)

That the Internet is two way is rather obvious but it isn't really enough, you have to understand that your browser actually executes code. Otherwise they just see it as a very advanced channel selection, you send an URL, you get a page to watch back. And honestly if the web was nothing but html/images 99.99% of the current attacks would fail.

Re:Better than not having it (2)

louden obscure (766926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335318)

Of course they think of their computer as an appliance, that is how PC makers market them. That is how Microsoft markets Its OS. And to throw in an automotive analogy, it's how Toyota markets their vehicles.

Re:Better than not having it (1)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#35336006)

Insanely off topic, I know, but where do you live that Toyota markets their vehicles like that? When I see Toyota being advertised, they typically position themselves in the fun to drive category, not the get you from point a to point b category - at least in terms of cars like the Matrix, their trucks tend to be advertised in terms of unbelieveable ruggedness... doesn't scream "appliance" to me...

Re:Better than not having it (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#35336498)

Didn't Microsoft do a campaign: "The Wow Starts Now!!"? And one with Jerry Seinfeld?

Design/advertising aren't usually the same thing. People know they're buying an appliance but they associate the decision with image presented in the adverts.

Despite their "fun to drive" advertising Toyota has stopped making Supras and MR2s - their only fun cars. Even their slightly-fun Celica was eventually canned in favor of more mundane models.

Re:Better than not having it (2, Funny)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335414)

Ahh, "sheeple". The key word to let you know that the entire argument is worthless dribble.

Re:Better than not having it (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335946)

Yeh, I stopped reading at that word and just scrolled down to see a comment like this. Fucking pisses me off when people use "sheeple", a sense of superiority doesn't bode well for any argument.

Re:Better than not having it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35336212)

What is Sheeple anyway? Is that like Women who are also People. She-ple? If it is I don't want anything to do with it

Re:Better than not having it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335994)

The first post is an adequate response to yours.

Re:Better than not having it (2)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335810)

Personally, I don't want to see ad-blocking go main stream (I feel the same way about Linux too, but that's another rant)
Over the years I've become quite adept at writing rules for adblock to block ads, trackers, and otherwise undesirable content.
This will only serve to make advertisers come up ways to make advertising more difficult to block and ultimately more obtrusive.

Re:Better than not having it (1)

Riven.exe (1230284) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335882)

Personally, I don't want to see ad-blocking go main stream

Don't worry, IE9 will never be mainstream. People will stick with IE6 at workplaces, Firefox/Chrome/Opera/etc. at home and webkit browsers on mobiles. Even Microsoft's own mobile OS don't and most likely won't use IE9 rendering engine, much less features.

Hooray (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35334852)

Begin the Microsoft bashing for giving users more options that resemble functionality available in Firefox (with addons)!

Re:Hooray (2, Insightful)

hawkingradiation (1526209) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335252)

Give me the option of blocking all of Microsoft partner's ads while keeping Google's and I will consider installing it, not being mandated by the operating system's pre-installed browser. Who needs a content filter on their PC?

HTML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35334856)

Go back to old-school HTML. No Java, no scripts, no BS.

Re:HTML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335206)

Well, No java and No scripts at least.

There was still the horrors of BS like blink tags, animated tiled backgrounds marquees and embedded midi.

Re:HTML (1)

nhstar (452291) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335554)

oh, but to bring back the original Hampster Dance!!!

*nostalgic swoon*

Re:HTML (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335970)

Or the old version of x10's website. So much blinkey, I could never order from them. It made me go blind.

Who cares? (-1, Redundant)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35334868)

When you can run Firefox with Adblock Plus and NoScript, why would anyone care about IE in the first place? Who even uses IE in this day and age, and why?

Re:Who cares? (2)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35334874)

Because it comes pre-installed. And a lot of people want/need something that works out of the box. They don't know about add-ons. They don't care about security, they just want to surf the web.

Re:Who cares? (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35334954)

Because it comes pre-installed. And a lot of people want/need something that works out of the box. They don't know about add-ons. They don't care about security, they just want to surf the web.

If they choose not to care about security that's fine, but then I don't want to hear their complaints when they get some kind of infection.

Welcome to the world of responsible adulthood, where you make your bed and lay in it. The amount of effort people spend to fight against accepting this reality is quite a bit greater than the effort it would take to become decently secure.

The only injustice is that the black-hats can compromise the machines of those who don't care about security and use them to degrade the Internet experience of those who do, usually in the form of spam and DDoS attacks. So ultimately Microsoft getting its act together regarding security would be a good thing.

Re:Who cares? (3, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335004)

Let me get this straight. It's my fault if someone kills me in my home. I should have cared better about security? It's not the consumers fault for believing when they buy a pc with legal software they have everything they need. When I buy a new car, I'm not going to take it to a garage to check the brakes, you just assume it works. Not everybody knows a thing or 2 about software/hardware. No matter how you turn it. It's still the baddies fault.

Re:Who cares? (2)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335062)

Let me get this straight. It's my fault if someone kills me in my home. I should have cared better about security?
It's not the consumers fault for believing when they buy a pc with legal software they have everything they need. When I buy a new car, I'm not going to take it to a garage to check the brakes, you just assume it works. Not everybody knows a thing or 2 about software/hardware.
No matter how you turn it. It's still the baddies fault.

The problem with broad analogies is that they fail to account for the fact that one situation is not like the others.

A "pc with legal software" is more like a firearm. At least in the States, it's legal to own. That doesn't mean it isn't potentially dangerous if misused. A general-purpose computer is a powerful machine. It is not a mere appliance. It can both help and harm its owner. Which one occurs depends on the owner and what the owner is willing to invest in his or her own experience.

Computers are not yet ready for the stupid, ignorant, careless, irresponsible, etc. They are not idiot-proof. In the case of Microsoft, they will fail to live up to the marketing claims of security and ease-of-use. It is up to We the People, or if you like, We the Customer to realize this and act accordingly. Certainly the government is not going to make Microsoft liable for damages suffered by compromises of its operating systems. So it's up to the users. Ideal or non-ideal, just or unjust, that is the reality. You either deny it and suffer or acknowledge it and avoid preventable suffering. That much is your choice. It's about the only choice you're going to have in the matter, right or wrong.

Those who disagree with me can always get compromised and complain about how much of a victim they are. As for me, I'd rather inform myself and protect myself. Every adult has the same choice in the matter. Ultimately, reality is a really tough thing with which to argue.

Re:Who cares? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335264)

When I buy a new car, I'm not going to take it to a garage to check the brakes, you just assume it works.

Just for your future reference, if you get behind the wheel of a car and plow into a person because you failed to verify the breaks worked properly, it will be You who the law holds responsible, and it will be you in jail under manslaughter charges.

And personally I hope you live and drive very very far away from me, knowing you would willingly get into a 2 ton dangerous device and not even check first if it can be driven safely.

You sir are a danger to others around you and a menace to human life.

Re:Who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335368)

When I buy a new car, I'm not going to take it to a garage to check the brakes, you just assume it works.

Just for your future reference, if you get behind the wheel of a car and plow into a person because you failed to verify the breaks worked properly, it will be You who the law holds responsible, and it will be you in jail under manslaughter charges.

And personally I hope you live and drive very very far away from me, knowing you would willingly get into a 2 ton dangerous device and not even check first if it can be driven safely.

You sir are a danger to others around you and a menace to human life.

We call those niggers 'round these parts.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335378)

When I buy a new car, I'm not going to take it to a garage to check the brakes, you just assume it works.

Just for your future reference, if you get behind the wheel of a car and plow into a person because you failed to verify the breaks worked properly, it will be You who the law holds responsible, and it will be you in jail under manslaughter charges.

And personally I hope you live and drive very very far away from me, knowing you would willingly get into a 2 ton dangerous device and not even check first if it can be driven safely.

You sir are a danger to others around you and a menace to human life.

How old are you?

Re:Who cares? (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335568)

actually no; a better example would be zombies that can open doors but cant break windows or locks or even go on rocky terrain,
anyone can walk pass them with ease, they have to bite u for like 30 seconds and u cant get it cleaned for the infection to spread

and it still spreads by people not locking their doors at night, and in that case i would blame them

while on the other hand a hacker(not someone spreading malware to get as many computers in a bot net as possible, but some targeting you) would someone who can pick locks and has a gun and in that case most people cant defend themselves (including myself)

Re:Who cares? (2)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335340)

Given that IE is the most secure browser after Chrome, your point misses the mark by a large margin.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335014)

Also
Ghostery => http://www.ghostery.com/ [ghostery.com]
Https-Everywhere => https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere [eff.org]
Beef Taco => http://jmhobbs.github.com/beef-taco [github.com]

then you will have a chance of good browsing without telling everybody where you have been and who you ate for lunch

Re:Who cares? (3, Interesting)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335070)

I do, because Firefox has slowly turned into a bloated pile of ass. Ironically, it's now more bloated and slower then IE9. This isn't 2004 anymore and we aren't talking about IE6.

Re:Who cares? (3, Interesting)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335072)

You should care, because if ad block becomes defacto and comes preinstalled with IE9, ad agencies would quickly start workaround it (just like how hulu does currently (hulu's policy is, you can use adblock, but you would have to putup with a min of absolute silence and blank screen before the show continues))

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35336276)

Because a lot of people don't like Firefox. I know it must come as a horrible shock to you, but your beloved browser isn't the best browser in most peoples' eyes.

Call Centre Tech Support... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35334896)

As someone who has worked in call centre tech support, may I be among the first to say that this will be yet another 'feature' that bored children will mess with to break their web browser. While activating Tracking Protection will probably be relatively easy, no doubt the button to reset this feature to defaults (and remove any blacklisting) will be hidden seven layers deep in complex "Options" dialogs.

Re:Call Centre Tech Support... (3, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35334964)

no doubt the button to reset this feature to defaults (and remove any blacklisting) will be hidden seven layers deep in complex "Options" dialogs

Tools>Safety>Tracking Protection>Disable

Re:Call Centre Tech Support... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335512)

Quit with yo' crazy tech jibber jabber foo'.

bing! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35334928)

An nodoubt it will have a backdoor to allow tracking by Bing

Re:bing! (5, Funny)

high_rolla (1068540) | more than 3 years ago | (#35334970)

Bing doesn't need a backdoor. Its probably easier for them to just Google you to find out about you.

Re:bing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35336490)

Actually, if Microsoft want to know about your life, it's probably easier for them to just make sure you're fucked, via your politicians.

So they invented AdBlock? (-1, Troll)

slasher155 (2005204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35334948)

Nice, another copy job from M$. And the TFA (which I did read), really shows that the author never used AdBlock before. M$ actually didn't do anything bad now, don't tell that I troll against them. As a side note, if Microsoft implements AdBlock, and enables it for everyone, the the ad industry will find a ways to override it. (They don't bother yet, since usually only smart peoples use Firefox, and thus they are less likely to fall into their traps, and thus AdBlock even benefits them by saving their bandwidth). I have even seen few sites that detect firefox's AdBlock, and complain about it, like this one [tinyurl.com]

Re:So they invented AdBlock? (1)

LittlePud (1356157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335110)

Mod parent down. Link is a troll (goatse).

Re:So they invented AdBlock? (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335598)

thanks almost clicked it

thedailynewhiphop.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35334952)

The Daily Hip Hop is the best new website offering hip hop fans the top hip hop songs, hot hip hop artists, new hip hop videos and hip hop news. Listen to hot hip hop music.

Hip hop is a form of musical expression and artistic culture that originated in African-American South Bronx community during the late 1970s in New York City. Jamaican born DJ Clive "Kool Herc" Campbell is credited as being highly influential in the pioneering stage of hip hop music. Hip hop music is now global with hot hip hop artists from nearly every country. According to the U.S. Department of State, hip hop is "now the center of a mega music and fashion industry around the world," that crosses social barriers and cuts across racial lines

Re:thedailynewhiphop.com (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335844)

I've been wondering when I'd start actually seeing these crop up here. This is purely to boost the site's google rating. Spam blockers and web filters have been blocking these guys for weeks now. Does Google ignore the content on here rated 0 or below? It should.

Tired of MS (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35334986)

Being cynical, I would say that the default list of "Trusted providers" = Microsoft partners and Google is out. Good thing nowadays we have some choice in browser selection. Microsoft can be its own ecosystem until it is a paramecium in some pond somewhere. Like a previous poster said: why use Microsoft IE9 nowadays when there is Chrome for Mac, Linux and Windows as well as Firefox for most other platforms out there? Cue Microsoft trolls: "This looks like a great thing from Microsoft, you know you don't have to use it". "I was a sceptic at first, but the more I look at this new feature, the most it seems it will help computing platforms everywhere" "No that is not true...this is an add on like an extension for Firefox"...

Re:Tired of MS (3, Informative)

ClubStew (113954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335854)

Have you even looked at the list of providers? They are third-party sites, like eTrust that has been around for ages.

Re:Tired of MS (4, Funny)

Nerull (586485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35336124)

Don't bring facts into this.

Could this be the nuclear option against Google? (4, Interesting)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335058)

If Microsoft suddenly get good ad blocking - as in, really good ad blocking, they could completely cut off all oxygen from Google. Of course, MS also makes some money from web advertising, but they don't need it to live like Google does. Also, it really would improve the quality of the user experience in IE if this were done well and thoroughly.

This site is optimized for Chrome (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335094)

Please download Chrome to continue viewing the site (with ads).

Re:This site is optimized for Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335474)

Spoof user agent.

Same can be said for Facebook. (2)

dclozier (1002772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335130)

However, it would be trivial to make sites unusable unless advertisements are enabled. This is where all of the ad blocking is leading to I think.

Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335182)

I am totally looking forward to this. I'm not just hating on Facebook either. "We'll make it up with advertising" just doesn't work for me. I'm happy to stop visiting a site when they restrict my access due to ad-blocking.

Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335628)

MS will probably backpedal quickly once Facebook using sheeple start crying "I can't get on my facebook anymore [with IE9]!", which is a sizable demographic.

Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335208)

I'm not quite sure how... If my understanding of how browsers work all the server does is send information at the request of a client. The only way they could detect ad blocking is by not having the data for that particular object requested by the client. Even if they were to use the lack of an ad content request as a method to disable ad blockers, they would still be unable to see if that data actually ever did make it to the user's screen, so they may end up just wasting bandwidth. I would imagine that is why this method hasn't been put to use.

Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335324)

Render the whole page in one massive Flash applet. It would be really really difficult to write an ad blocker that could go into a Flash applet and block things. There's no easily accessible DOM like HTML has, and the browser has no control over anything rendered by Flash. You'd have to bake the adblocker into Flash itself somehow.

You could ban Flash from making any requests for advertisements, but it would be trivial for the website to detect that. (ie try to load advertisement X, Y, or Z. If they don't work try a few more. At some point, decide that they can't all be down at the same time, so there must be an ad blocker. Then proceed howsoever you wish.)

Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335362)

Would a whole site rendered in flash be functional on older machines? That might leave a lot of potential clients without access.

Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (1)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335566)

Would a whole site rendered in flash be functional on older machines?

maybe ... but a whole site rendered in flash is useless with regards to search engines.
search engines still work with text and images only.

Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335950)

That's just not true. You have to write your Flash in a specific way in order to allow content to be crawled by search engines (I think they provide some sort of XML endpoint), but they're not completely inaccessible.

Which is too damn bad, since that above anything else could probably kill flash sites once and for all.

Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (2)

Dwedit (232252) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335498)

Just because it's binary doesn't mean it's not parsable. A SWF file is a very well-known file format, made up of a sequence of Tags. Some tags define images, sounds, or shapes, while other tags place them in the frame, while other tags define the Actionscript code.

So, if you're using a local HTTP proxy program, you could change the content of a SWF file as it downloads.

Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (1)

qvatch (576224) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335352)

Enter the promotional code from the end of the advertisement below to login....

Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335396)

Make it like Hulu. Make the user sit through the time that takes for the ad to complete with no sound and a blank screen, only then display content (enforce this on the server side). Most users would prefer something happening rather than staring at a blank screen, and hence just like FF's Adblock, Microsoft would opt to not block these ads.

Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (1)

dclozier (1002772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335484)

The page content could be set with text that fades into view after an onload event would scans the document to see that the ad content areas have been loaded. (javascript objects present, innerHTML available or whatnot) Of course one could turn off the use of CSS to view the content but I think most would prefer not to see pages in such a naked presentation. This was just off the top of my head. I'm sure more can be done to make viewing content a pain when ads are being blocked.

Re:Same can be said for Facebook. (3, Insightful)

igb (28052) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335826)

Actually, it wouldn't. You can normally write a computer program to mimic any human interaction within a browser. There are exceptions, but if content-providers were to move to (say) captchas in adverts prior to serving content, they would be writing their own death warrant: even if they didn't get killed by related providers who didn't impose this load, the simple (im) practicalities and (un) reliability of captchas would mean that far fewer people would read the page, unless it was utterly indispensable.

Ad-supported models are inherently brittle. They rely on advertisers being willing to purchase space, because they believe it to be worth their while. If consumers are unwilling to watch (and, indeed, act on) adverts, the magic money tree suddenly goes bare. No amount of howling that people who skip adverts are "stealing" content will put the fruit back on it. In the UK --- I don't know enough about the US --- the PVR has essentially killed one of the advertising-supported channels (ITV) to the point that its target demographic is now variously the old, poor and stupid who cannot manage a PVR. The smaller advertising-supported channels (ITV2/3/4, say) contain nothing but debt consolidation and personal injury shark adverts, and no-one with a post-16 education would find anything they might want to buy, even if they watched the adverts, which they don't. Unable to see their model is in a death spiral, the owners chase to the bottom, with programming aimed at the diminishing pool of viewers who are prepared to watch. The same is happening with Channel 5, while Channel 4 (which isn't directly ad-supported, but is indirectly ad-supported because as well as its own, small, advertising sales it is funded by a levy on ITV) has seen the writing on the wall and is desperately seeking funding as a top-slice on the BBC license income.

TV is progressively going subscription. Yes, some of the subscription channels also show adverts, but that's gravy, in the manner of adverts in cinemas, and they could live without it by just raising their subscriptions. It's only a matter of time before "free", advertising-supported, web content goes the same way. How are AOL these days?

Re:Could this be the nuclear option against Google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335232)

Can you actually formulate a sentence? Learn how to fucking spell you idiot.

Re:Could this be the nuclear option against Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335406)

That would imply that somehow MS had managed to string two lines of code together.

Any browser maker could stop their browser from requesting content not served from the URL in the address bar.

The question you should ponder is why this hasn't happened at all in the last 15 years.

Could it be that there is just far too much vested interest by ALL the major browser 'manufacturers'?

Re:Could this be the nuclear option against Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335424)

As consumers, we don't really want that. That will lead to : "Gmail can no longer be offered free from [some date about a 3 months from now that is long enough to give time to move in theory, but not practically]. Our usage data tracks that Gmail is used for about 80% of time that you run Windows. Accordingly the license price is 150 Euro. Upgrades cost more".

Oh dear....

Re:Could this be the nuclear option against Google (1)

Wiiboy1 (1699132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335468)

If Microsoft suddenly get good ad blocking - as in, really good ad blocking, they could completely cut off all oxygen from Google. Of course, MS also makes some money from web advertising, but they don't need it to live like Google does. Also, it really would improve the quality of the user experience in IE if this were done well and thoroughly.

Problem being that, in doing so, they would cut off oxygen to every site on the internet that uses ads for revenue (probably some massive percentage).

That's what bother me about ad blocking. As the owner of a small site that will be paid for by ad revenue (because I'm broke), I see this as an extremely bad thing. Maybe good from a consumer perspective, but bad from any other.

And as someone else said, it's possible many website owners would just tell anyone using IE w/ ad blocking to either jump off a cliff or switch to, say, Chrome.

Re:Could this be the nuclear option against Google (1)

weicco (645927) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335834)

And as someone else said, it's possible many website owners would just tell anyone using IE w/ ad blocking to either jump off a cliff or switch to, say, Chrome.

Switch to Chrome and install adblock, just as I did? ;)

Re:Could this be the nuclear option against Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335530)

But its not about having good ad blocking, its about having OK ad blocking so they can advertise they have ad blocking.

Re:Could this be the nuclear option against Google (1)

abednegoyulo (1797602) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335572)

If it is a nuclear option, then I better be hangin' with my ohmies.

Re:Could this be the nuclear option against Google (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335840)

>>If Microsoft suddenly get good ad blocking - as in, really good ad blocking, they could completely cut off all oxygen from Google.

You do realize that "tracking protection" (what TFA is about) and "ad blocking" are two different things, right?

It is entirely possible to block tracking without blocking ads, and vice versa.

In Firefox terms, it is the difference between Ghostery and AdBlock Plus.

Re:Could this be the nuclear option against Google (2)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335974)

If Microsoft suddenly get good ad blocking - as in, really good ad blocking, they could completely cut off all oxygen from Google. Of course, MS also makes some money from web advertising, but they don't need it to live like Google does. Also, it really would improve the quality of the user experience in IE if this were done well and thoroughly.

Google would just get really good at detecting Ad blocking and refuse to serve search results and other content if you block their ads.

Other Products Had This 10 years Ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335154)

The ability to block or allow specific web content was in a little-known product called AtGuard by WRQ ten years ago. It was pretty awesome. If IE 9 is anything like it, everybody will be using it.

It's not... (1)

umask077 (122989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335188)

It's really not about if the option will be effective. Its really about the user and level of competency with computers that despite the years of integration of tech, maybe users are a FAIL.

So... (0)

gaderael (1081429) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335246)

It'll be Microsoft's less effective version of AdBlock Plus and NoScript?

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335478)

Depends on whether you measure effectiveness by # of ads blocked for one tech-savy user or # of users protected from tracking ads, regardless of how savy they are.

As much as I love NoScript, with the daily updates and having to micro-manage policies to make some sites usable, it's not something that's going to work for your typical Grandma.

Re:So... (0)

loving_weiners (2001248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335870)

wow dude, smoke cock much? I bet you love it.

Translation: I hate Microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335260)

> While the feature does effectively block ads from Web sites,
> I'm not yet convinced

Translation: It's Microsoft, so I have to find fault with it!

You just sound stupid.

Re:Translation: I hate Microsoft! (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335276)

> While the feature does effectively block ads from Web sites,
> I'm not yet convinced

Translation: It's Microsoft, so I have to find fault with it!

You just sound stupid.

No. The proper translation is: This might be a step in the right direction, but, Microsoft has a history of not really giving a fuck about making a good web browser, so we'll have to wait and see.

Tag them all (1)

lucm (889690) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335448)

Ad tracking reminds me of scanning a printout. It is suboptimal and error-prone.

Because dogs have a hard time sniffing explosives such as Semtex, the manufacturers are legally bound to inject a chemical in the explosive so the dogs can detect them. I know the internets cannot be tamed like explosive manufacturers, but if some ad tagging standard was published by the W3C or some other organization, real, efficient, cross-platform ad-blocking could happen.

Until then, ad tracking is an amazing field for data-mining enthusiasts, but not much more.

Re:Tag them all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335494)

If some ad tagging standard was published by the W3C...everyone would ignore it and life would go on as usual.

Seriously, what ad company in their right mind would tag their ads as such?

Re:Tag them all (1)

lucm (889690) | more than 3 years ago | (#35336322)

It's just like SSL certificates. You can visit a website using SSL but your browser will (should) tell you if the certificate is not valid. Invalid or missing certificate won't prevent you from using the website but you get to choose and to make it work you need a cross-browser standard.

The problem with current ad-blocking technologies is that there is no definitive authority on what should/could be blocked or how it should be blocked, and many plugins will block everything. All that does is hurting website owners that need ad revenue.

Ads are not a bad thing; if you read a specialized trade magazine you probably are interested by the ads because they usually are relevant to the purpose of the magazine. The problem is generic ads that are not really relevant to whatever website they are displayed on; they are basically like spam that marketing people still use because they are cost-effective. Now if there was a way to filter them out, they would become less attractive and advertising money would be better spent on ads targeted to people that will read them.

This does not seem possible, however remember how crazy was the domain name trade before Google; it was so hard to gain some visibility on the internet that people were paying insane amounts of money to get catchy domain names. Now with Google you can have a lousy domain name, you could even host your stuff on Geocities if it still existed and people could find you easily if your content is somehow relevant. The same kind of paradigm shift is now required with ads, and I believe this can be done by proper tagging.

Chestnuts (3, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335454)

Derived from an old chestnut. [craphound.com]

Your post advocates a

(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting Internet Tracking. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

(X) Trackers can easily use it to identify those they want to track the most
(X) User preferences and other legitimate tracking uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop tracking for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of the Web will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from trackers
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many Web users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
(X) Trackers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for web tracking
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all IP addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(X) Huge existing software investment in shopping carts
(X) Susceptibility of protocols other than HTTP to attack
(X) Willingness of users to install browser plugins
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of web tracking
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with affiliate programs
(X) Dishonesty on the part of trackers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) IE

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
(X) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
(X) HTML headers should not be the subject of legislation
(X) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Browsing should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time IP addresses are cumbersome
(X) I don't want the government reading my tracking preferences
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

Re:Chestnuts (0)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335632)

"(X) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck"
hmmmmmm i think these have their place, but i`d agree not in a forced software from mirco$oft

How is this news that matters at /.? (2, Funny)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335728)

Linux users run Firefox because they are so smart, Mac users run Safari because they are brainwashed, Windows users still run IE6 since their IT department won't let them upgrade, and there's that guy who runs Opera.

Re:How is this news that matters at /.? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35336112)

Yep, that's me all right - for that is The One True Browser! (although the Flash support sucks)

No ads benefits folks you may not like (2, Interesting)

Invisible Now (525401) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335760)

No ads = less diverse content. There will be unintended consequences. If one person blocks ads then they're just a free-rider. If everyone does, the web will really suck. Sure, some sweet folks will continue to post hobby sites, just as in the golden days of yore. And non-profits will publish. And big corporate sales and propaganda sites. And the Government and lobbyists. (BTW: They're all selling you something, aren't they?) But most of what makes the web diverse and useful and free today will die if advertising is eliminated. You don't have to click, just like you don't have to listen or look at ads in conventional free media. I'm sure that is seen as a victory for some, but not me. Almost all the cool, independent sites will wither. Maybe a few rich kids can keep BoingBoing alive, but... What may happen is what I would do with my ad supported but still public-serving sites. Block the ads that enable me to give you content: No access to the site. You'll never know what you're missing.

Re:No ads benefits folks you may not like (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335838)

Tracking is good. It enables ad providers to provide ads that are for stuff you might want rather than random ads. Your experience becomes a field of desireable things rather than a field of lollipops interspersed with landmines.

Tracking is bad. It enables evil corporations to compile a dossier of what you like and target your weaknesses. It's an opportunity for vendors to dig into your subconscious even more then they do already and trick you into buying things that aren't what you want by presenting them in the way that works for you.

Which is it? Unfortunately, both. Technology will not do away with "Caveat Emptor."

Re:No ads benefits folks you may not like (1, Insightful)

Superdarion (1286310) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335938)

No ads = less diverse content.

No, you see, people who look for add-ons like adblock don't do it to freeride the internet. Most of us are actually willing to see (and, god help us all, click) adds in the websites we visit. That's all fine and pretty. The problem arises when some stupid sites start doing flash-based advertisements; big, flashy, cpu-consuming, epilepsy-inducing, "facebook of sex" banners that keep making my head hurt and that occupy most of the real-state in a website.

Or do you think that any regular user will seek adblock in order to go around free of google text-based advertising? Hell, I even went thru the trouble of specifically white-listing google from my addblock because my problem is not with them or anyone being friendly but with those horrible flash ads that pollute many websites.

Ad blocking will not cause less diverse content. It will cause a shift of paradigm. It will change the ads and turn them into friendly things that bother very few so that the regular user will never even think about seeking ad blocking software (or even manually activating the IE9 option).

And it is precisely what happens with TV, except that for TV there is a central organism (country-specific, of course) that watches over the ad companies and doesn't allow them to do whatever they want. The internet can't have such a thing (well, it can, but we don't want it), so now we have the free market actually regulating itself, as it should. I think this is fucking awesome!

Re:No ads benefits folks you may not like (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35336324)

Most of us are actually willing to see (and, god help us all, click) adds in the websites we visit

[citation needed]
Sorry, but i can pull facts out of my ass too.

Most people are lazy and will just grab the biggest lists, and as many as possible, to get rid of ads because you people pushed it so hard.

Don't want to see flash ads? FLASHBLOCK.
Don't like ads that abuse Javascript? NOSCRIPT.
There was never a need for Adblock. I've never used it, and i never will.
Most advertisers are perfectly fine, besides the odd one who abuses GIFs by making them have a high framerate.
But even that is seriously low now because it is a potential epilepsy risk.
The others can easily be blocked with a simple HOSTS entry for the entire domains they own.

Not only that, the developer of adblock is seriously lacking in balls and gave up his attempts to reverse the damage he done since someone would have probably forked the project.
Yeah, like that would matter, adblock is probably the first things most Firefox kiddies search for, what other name could you use, addblock, adbblock, you can't compete with it, it already has most of the users for the foreseeable future.
He could have created a whole directory of trusted sites based on a simple "like / dislike" system and the meta tag, but he explained it terribly, he made everyone panic and dropped it entirely in fear of the fork.

I'm all for blocking people who use adblock, it is easily detectable and impossible to prevent given current FF extensions API, and most other extensions APIs in other browsers in fact.
Wait, i will restate that, i'm all for blocking adblockers who block a sites ads if the site isn't using abusive advertising.
People will be straight at me for that line with "then we will go to another site", no you won't, you won't, don't even say that, especially if it is a large site like this, IGN or many others.
If every one of them done it, you'd be lost and confused, begging for a new version of adblock like the freeriders you are.

Re:No ads benefits folks you may not like (3, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#35336008)

I had to read your post twice, because it made absolutely no sense to me. Then, I realized I understood you - I still don't think it makes sense.

No ads = less diverse content.

When I think of "sites with ads" I think of: sites like cracked.com, link aggregators, and facebook - sites with no content of value

There will be unintended consequences. If one person blocks ads then they're just a free-rider. If everyone does, the web will really suck.

Unsubstantiated claim. On what basis do you make it? The absence of twitter, facebook and the like is hardly a game-stopper.

Sure, some sweet folks will continue to post hobby sites, just as in the golden days of yore. And non-profits will publish. And big corporate sales and propaganda sites. And the Government and lobbyists. (BTW: They're all selling you something, aren't they?) But most of what makes the web diverse and useful and free today will die if advertising is eliminated.

Wait - I'm completely lost by these statements. Aren't these "will still be around" sites the actual content on the Internet - the stuff that brought us all here in the first place? By your Slashdot UUID it would seem you're likely old enough to remember the days of dialup and maybe even BBSes; surely "the web" isn't more functionally useful now to you than it was back then? Honestly: it was easier to find stuff back then because there was a lot less noise (at least now that google has insisted on making their search engine less functional than astavista).

There will still be sites like Debka and WND, which get most of their revenue through syndication and memberships - if that's what you'd miss. CNN, Fox News and the like would likely be cut down to size if the syndicated adverts were all gone, as well. Wikipedia, by far the most useful "modern" web source? No ads to speak of, so 'blocking' them isn't a matter.

But even if that happens, getting rid of "all ads" is unlikely to happen. Honestly: I hope it doesn't happen.

Let me explain. I'm really adverse to ads. They bother me on a 'ok, now my eyes are twitching and i need a cigarette' level. However, within specific contexts, I appreciate them. For instance, I went to the trouble of disabling ad blocking on a couple sites I frequent because:

1) the sites were small: either community or proprietor run, with strong communities
2) the ads were communally targeted (ie for the group/community interests)
3) the ads were specifically picked/allowed by the site proprietors/owners/managers
4) the ads weren't intrusive or excessive

If advertisers hadn't decided to nuke users from orbit for short-term monetary gain, the popularity (and capability) of ad blocking software would've never come to be. They dug their own grave: they're providing nothing useful to their customers at this point, and need to re-think their business. (This goes for Google as well. Their ad noise is worse now than AltaVista was when I decided to stop using them.)

Chrome (1)

Conrthomas (1993390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335814)

Whiiiiiiich is exactly why I use chrome.

Re:Chrome (0)

loving_weiners (2001248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335888)

go tell someone who cares you stupid fuckwit.. you are an annoying asshat.

Insanity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35335918)

All this fucktisement stress wouldn't be important to the point where the user makes ad-blocking #1(or in the top 3) on their priority list of browser choices if web developers didn't cluster fuck their websites will ads on every corner/side in the most annoying pop-up/on-top/sliding advertisement bars with sound or distracting color flashing movements.

Even the video player now has fking built in advertisement bars! As if the page itself on top, left, right, bottom, inside and between wasn't enough...insane if they think people will buy a product because they recognised it from some annoying website like that.

Web developers would likely get more page hits or ad hits if they didn't choose for such massivly nagging and hated advertisement techniques.

Is IE 9 avaible? (1)

elleinsmith (1884070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35335984)

Is IE 9 avaible? right now?

Re:Is IE 9 avaible? (2)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35336106)

Yes. [microsoft.com]

Ad-blocking (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35336152)

Since it is now in all major browsers, I wonder how the idiots running the "why firefox is blocked" campaign are going to react. Maybe they will now block the internet.

Re:Ad-blocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35336554)

Since it is now in all major browsers, I wonder how the idiots running the "why firefox is blocked" campaign are going to react. Maybe they will now block the internet.

Well, to play devil's advocate - if the whole internet is blocking their only source of paying for their operation, they just as well might. At least they will not have to pay the serving cost. Currently the adblock users are in the same situation as the anti-vaccine people: The choice to run adblock currently doesn't lead to any real negative consequences, like sites you like to surf having to shut down for lack of income, because enough of a critical mass is not blocking ads. But if enough people start doing that, the consequences will show.

But, as many people here seem to be mistaken about -- all major browsers are not blocking ads, that is still an addon some users choose to install. IE9 tracking protection is about... tracking protection -- it is a privacy tool.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?