×

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!

IE10 Will Have 'Do Not Track' On By Default

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the stop-or-i'll-say-stop-again dept.

Internet Explorer 181

An anonymous reader writes "As Microsoft released the preview of the next version of its Internet Explorer browser, news that in Windows 8 the browser will be sending a 'Do Not Track' signal to Web sites by default must have shaken online advertising giants. 'Consumers can change this default setting if they choose,' Microsoft noted, but added that this decision reflects their commitment to providing Windows customers an experience that is 'private by default' in an era when so much user data is collected online.' This step will make Internet Explorer 10 the first web browser with DNT on by default. And while the websites are not required to comply with the users' do-not-track request, the DNT initiative — started by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission — is making good progress."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

181 comments

First posty :) (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181171)

I'm a first posty please upvote me reddit!

Re:First posty :) (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181255)

Well first posty are often the best posty, they make the other posty look bad compared to the first posty which is a good thing for first posty considering that the other posty can't compete with the first posty. A lot of posty are made on www.reddit.com everyday, they say the posty originate from www.tblop.com but they really aren't sure because the posty have a mind of their own, they are becoming self aware, the posty are what the world live by today, public opinion is often bias by posty which drill down opinions in humans mind. The posty sure have a large impact on today's society, isn't that what we all care about, the posty instead of the article. Is that a bad thing? Among the posty which one of the posty read article? Can we trust a posty? If not what can be done to really trust the posty if you haven't read the article yourself ? Can you trust a posty you can't verify? Should we make automatic bot that analyze if the posty is related to the articles and if specific words from the article exists in the posty ? Please reddit make a posty bot for slashdot because they really need one. can somebody help the posty cause?

Re:First posty :) (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181663)

Can we have a +1 Bafflingly Nonsensical?

Re:First posty :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181845)

Can we have a +1 Bafflingly Nonsensical?

I'd be down for that. It's pretty lame, but it the sombodys-sanitized-personal-computer thing.

OK but... (5, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#40181183)

It's nice on the one hand that Microsoft is making the privacy option the default, but if DNT is unenforceable, wouldn't "DNT by default" give certain entities an excuse to ignore the DNT flag by default?

Re:OK but... (4, Interesting)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 2 years ago | (#40181241)

Sounds to me like this will end up like the internet version of the "Do Not Call" list.

Ask my family on how that one worked out.

Re:OK but... (4, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#40181365)

Sounds to me like this will end up like the internet version of the "Do Not Call" list.

Ask my family on how that one worked out.

It seems to be working pretty well to me. I still get some unsolicited calls, but probably about 10% of what I got before NDNC. Most of the remaining calls are from charities and political polling organizations which are exempted from NDNC.

Re:OK but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181583)

Slashdot really needs a "-1, factually incorrect" moderation option.

You didn't even experiencement them.

Re:OK but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181709)

It has 'over rated', but considering what the guy above you said, you'd be downmodding an opinion/anecdote as factually incorrect. Which would be fucking retarded.

Re:OK but... (2)

lbk70 (1229872) | about 2 years ago | (#40181749)

I also had a marked decrease in unsolicited calls when I got on the DNC list. For the charities and political groups, I politely ask them to take me off their call lists and they never call again.

Re:OK but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182347)

Me too. Except for the "politely" part.

Re:OK but... (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 years ago | (#40182133)

Sounds to me like this will end up like the internet version of the "Do Not Call" list.

Ask my family on how that one worked out.

It seems to be working pretty well to me. I still get some unsolicited calls, but probably about 10% of what I got before NDNC. Most of the remaining calls are from charities and political polling organizations which are exempted from NDNC.

What irks me is that one of the most flagrant violators - 2-3 times every day - is a local alarm company. Run by a former cop.

Re:OK but... (4, Funny)

Pope (17780) | about 2 years ago | (#40181465)

Sounds to me like this will end up like the internet version of the "Do Not Call" list.

Ask my family on how that one worked out.

OK. What time are they usually home?

Re:OK but... (2)

idontgno (624372) | about 2 years ago | (#40182313)

See? You're doing it wrong.

You should robo-dial them all hours of the day and night until someone answers.

Re:OK but... (1)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | about 2 years ago | (#40181483)

Most people complaining about DNC violations are talking about exemptions, like charities, companies you do business with or did in the last 6 months, offers from those companies' partners, etc. Legitimate businesses are pretty good about DNC - heck, a lot of them will even scrub their own internal lists against the DNC, even though they're allowed to solicit to you as a customer. There are plenty of actual violations, definitely, but getting unsolicited cold-calls is the exception.

Re:OK but... (1, Funny)

Sloppy (14984) | about 2 years ago | (#40181491)

Ask my family on how that one worked out.

I tried but they wouldn't answer the phone.

Re:OK but... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40181825)

>>>Ask my family on how that one worked out.

If people are calling when you are on the Do Not Call list, then you can report them to the state. They will be fined many thousands of dollars.

Re:OK but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182129)

I would prefer to ask how many times you brought up unsolicited calls to the Do Not Call registry? If you never complain no action will be done... they don't monitor your calls. In the early days this was a problem but it's a non-issue now.

If only the red dot campaign had more strength (DNC but for your mailbox!). http://www.reddotcampaign.ca/

Expect browser add-ons to work around this ... (3, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#40181409)

It's nice on the one hand that Microsoft is making the privacy option the default, but if DNT is unenforceable, wouldn't "DNT by default" give certain entities an excuse to ignore the DNT flag by default?

Expect browser add-ons to work around this. Their EULAs will mention this so there may be no DNT enforceability issue, the user clicked yes. Google, Facebook, etc will surely have various add-ons that will "enhance" the IE10 experience.

Re:Expect browser add-ons to work around this ... (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 years ago | (#40181637)

MS seems to have thought about it. No plugins will work in Windows RT or the Metro browser. Just the desktop IE in regular Windows 8.

Re:Expect browser add-ons to work around this ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#40181735)

MS seems to have thought about it. No plugins will work in Windows RT or the Metro browser. Just the desktop IE in regular Windows 8.

Can the user enable plugins? I fear this will be one of the few things that the average user will learn how to do.

Re:Expect browser add-ons to work around this ... (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 years ago | (#40181813)

No they cannot, the plugin support code is not even present in Metro IE.

Re:Expect browser add-ons to work around this ... (2)

baka_toroi (1194359) | about 2 years ago | (#40182029)

It's worth mentioning that Adobe Flash will be integrated on Metro IE, even though it doesn't support plugins.

Re:Expect browser add-ons to work around this ... (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 years ago | (#40182067)

That's because Flash is not a plugin in Metro IE, it's integrated like PNG or GIF is. Hope it won't cause too many security issues.

Re:OK but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181455)

If they stop honoring the flag, then MS could put self updating ghostery like code in IE10 just in case.

Re:OK but... (1)

ragefan (267937) | about 2 years ago | (#40181527)

Don't worry every site you visit will be sent to Microsoft so they can follow up with each site and make sure they are following DNT correctly.

Re:OK but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181541)

They do this now that microsoft isnt the "big" collector of user information anymore.

They wouldn't have done this let say 10yrs ago even if they could have.

Also, I will not be satisfied until they do the same with their crappy Window Update service, it's almost illegal all the information they send when updating your windows.

Re:OK but... (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#40181669)

exactly what bits of info are you objecting to as such??

Hardware/Windows version info: kindof needed to do the job
various stats info: shady needed for WGA checking
Software info: again needed for updating said software (the MS stuff and anything else that hooks WU

you do know that there are OFFLINE patch tools availible like WSUSOFFLINE right??

Yep, MS is derailing the whole process. (3, Informative)

pavon (30274) | about 2 years ago | (#40181763)

Yeah, both the FTC guidelines [ftc.gov] and the current W3C DNT draft [w3.org] both state that users should opt-out of tracking, not opt-in. Furthermore, the advertizing industry groups like that have had the most successful with self-regulation efforts [aboutads.info] have flat-out said that while they will respect the user's chose to opt-out, they will ignore any system that opts users out automatically.

Microsoft's decision here is completely counter productive. At best, it means that sites will add code to ignore theDNT header if the UA is IE. At worst it will derail the entire process.

Re:Yep, MS is derailing the whole process. (1)

pavon (30274) | about 2 years ago | (#40181815)

Holy crap that sentence got garbled in editing. It should read:
Furthermore, the advertizing industry groups that have had the most success with self-regulation efforts

Re:Yep, MS is derailing the whole process. (0)

mystikkman (1487801) | about 2 years ago | (#40182015)

Furthermore, the advertizing industry groups like that have had the most successful with self-regulation efforts [aboutads.info] have flat-out said that while they will respect the user's chose to opt-out, they will ignore any system that opts users out automatically.

Wow, so we are now so beholden to advertising companies now that we should give in to their blackmail and give into their self-deregulation which will get dumped at the first opportunity when things go quiet since it's non binding and not enforceable?

You sound like a tobacco industry shill, except for Google and the ads business, wanting to let them dictate things for their own mega profits.

Re:Yep, MS is derailing the whole process. (3, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | about 2 years ago | (#40182257)

You are completely missing the point. Compliance with the DNT is voluntary. That is a fact, not my opinion of how things should be. It is a polite request not to be tracked, no more no less. Several large advertizing industry groups have agreed to respect this request, and things have been progressing nicely along those lines. MS actions are basically a big "fuck you" to groups who have previously been cooperative.

Taking an antagonistic approach to solving a problem only works you have something to back your actions up. If there were laws or regulations requiring advertisers to follow the DNT, then MS actions would be productive. If MS were instead to implement technical means of blocking tracking, their actions would be productive.

But implementing a solution that requires the cooperation of others to have any affect whatsoever, and then being a complete asshole to those people is beyond pointless.

Re:Yep, MS is derailing the whole process. (1)

mystikkman (1487801) | about 2 years ago | (#40182449)

Sorry for sounding combative earlier.

Even if not legal, the companies (atleast the big ones) that don't respect DNT can be publicly shamed and browser extensions etc. can be made which block those ad networks which don't respect it, and people can install those to put pressure on those companies(which would be able to show generic ads even with DNT on).

The status quo won't be affected in the least bit by making DNT opt-in for users.

What about 3rd party cookies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181187)

DNT is useless. Disable 3rd party by default if you have the balls.

Re:What about 3rd party cookies? (2)

Krojack (575051) | about 2 years ago | (#40181379)

I disabled 3rd-party cookies in FF and everything was fine for years till my bank changed their online banking. For the longest time I couldn't get it to work then one day I enabled 3rd-party cookies and BAM it worked. Yeah it just seems wrong when an online banking site requires you to also connect to a 3rd-party domain for some unknown reason. The 3rd-party domain is "billdomain.com"

Good job, MS (4, Funny)

Sloppy (14984) | about 2 years ago | (#40181189)

I've come to like complexity in villainous characters. I know, I know, it's all the rage now; I'm just saying this is a bandwagon I jumped on. They can't all be Saurons, give me a Jaime Lannister now and then.

Re:Good job, MS (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 2 years ago | (#40181377)

Concur; good on Microsoft. Now all they have to do is start a "Privacy-Protected"-certified webring/list where any website where DNT is enforced will be listed and add a user-controllable filter to IE and/or Bing searches for that feature/condition.

Of course, I suppose anybody else could start such a webring/list.

This is a direct assault on Google's revenue (5, Insightful)

RobinH (124750) | about 2 years ago | (#40181231)

Google makes it money from tracking users and selling customized ads. Google would look bad if they didn't honor DNT. Microsoft is setting the standard that DNT should be on by default, which reduces the ability for Google to track you all over the web. MS is not an ad company, so they really won't feel this as much.

Re:This is a direct assault on Google's revenue (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#40181445)

Google makes it money from tracking users and selling customized ads. Google would look bad if they didn't honor DNT. Microsoft is setting the standard that DNT should be on by default, which reduces the ability for Google to track you all over the web. MS is not an ad company, so they really won't feel this as much.

Google will probably offer a handy little add-on that will "enhance" your IE10 experience. It will probably disable DNT or work around it in some manner, the EULA will mention this, the user will click yes I agree.

Re:This is a direct assault on Google's revenue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181501)

Do Not Track is only when you're anonymous, afaik. So if you sign in, you waive that right.

As far as an add-on, the default experience in Windows 8 is metro, which is plug-in free.

Re:This is a direct assault on Google's revenue (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#40181607)

Do Not Track is only when you're anonymous, afaik. So if you sign in, you waive that right.

I'm thinking of some sort of add-on that is separate from various google services like gmail, etc.

As far as an add-on, the default experience in Windows 8 is metro, which is plug-in free.

That is a very good point. However I fear enabling plug-ins is one of the things that the average user will learn how to do.

Re:This is a direct assault on Google's revenue (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#40181547)

no need to disable the dnt. by installing or agreeing to using any google service you'll give them permission to track you. they'll need to start giving the cookie notice anyways, they'll wrap a nice long eula to it and be done with it.

the scrummier ad networks will ignore it anyways.

? Android EULA allows Google to track ? (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 years ago | (#40181851)

no need to disable the dnt. by installing or agreeing to using any google service you'll give them permission to track you. they'll need to start giving the cookie notice anyways, they'll wrap a nice long eula to it and be done with it.

I wonder what is in Android's EULA, if Google has some tracking authorization in there?

Re:This is a direct assault on Google's revenue (5, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#40181503)

Yes, this is an attack on Google, and has little to do with being "pro-consumer". In fact, I would consider it "anti-consumer", since non-paranoid people benefit from tracking, because it means the ads they are going to see anyway are tailored to their actual interests. I have no interest in turning off tracking, and want ad agencies to have as much information about me and my interests as I can give them.

Just in case Google is parsing this post: I will be buying a new mini-van later this summer.

Re:This is a direct assault on Google's revenue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181549)

and want ad agencies to have as much information about me and my interests as I can give them.

Please don't make it so obvious that you're a Google shill.

Re:This is a direct assault on Google's revenue (5, Funny)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 2 years ago | (#40182117)

Just in case Google is parsing this post: I will be buying a new mini-van later this summer.

We already know. We started the process to make you want a new van 3 weeks ago by showing ads for minivans 3 weeks ago. We also know you finally made up you mind yesterday.

- The Google Team.

Re:This is a direct assault on Google's revenue (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#40181635)

Microsoft has Bing, which supposedly uses user histories to judge what kind of results they want. They already have the reputation for being evil, though, so nobody really expects them to honor DNT. They can gather all the data they want, and laugh for a while until Google launches its next product to embarrassingly point out Microsoft's lack of innovation.

Re:This is a direct assault on Google's revenue (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#40182367)

Google makes it money from tracking users and selling customized ads. Google would look bad if they didn't honor DNT. Microsoft is setting the standard that DNT should be on by default, which reduces the ability for Google to track you all over the web. MS is not an ad company, so they really won't feel this as much.

Well, they are (they do sell ads, including customized ones, and do collect and track user data), they just aren't as successful at it as Google is. They also don't currently honor DNT. So what have DNT on-by-default in IE10 means is that the mass of users you use IE with default settings will continue to be tracked by Microsoft, and not tracked by all the parties that honor DNT.

Trying to mitigate risky move (2)

sideslash (1865434) | about 2 years ago | (#40181237)

Microsoft is making a bold (translate: risky) move with the huge changes in Windows 8, and they will need all the consumer sympathy they can muster. I classify the decision to include Flash support for select sites (e.g. disney.com) is in the same category with this default DNT policy. When October comes around, get out the popcorn.

FTC? Haha... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181239)

It's making progress because the FTC must have run out of lobbying cash and wants more.

Give it time and things will go back to the way they should... sucking big corps' dicks.

Who's DNT are they honoring? (4, Informative)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#40181271)

Sorry, but Windows has phoned home for at least 10 years, and sent data without user knowledge to 3rd party companies that could be traced to MS. IE may claim to have DNT on by default, but let's be clear. You will still be sending all kinds of tracking information to MS.

Seems to me to be a ploy to make money selling data to Google perhaps that Google gets now on their own.

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181395)

This is more of an anti-google move in the guise of privacy protection. They want Google ads to be less targeted to hurt their competition.

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 years ago | (#40181537)

>sent data without user knowledge to 3rd party companies that could be traced to MS

Citation needed and stupid Slashdot posts and rants don't count.

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181797)

âoeThe personal information we collect from you will be used by Microsoft and its controlled subsidiaries and affiliates to enable the features you use and provide the services or carry out the transactions you have requested or authorized. The information may also be used to analyze and improve Microsoft products and services,â Microsoft informs. âoeExcept as described in this statement, personal information you provide will not be transferred to third parties without your consent. We occasionally hire other companies to provide limited services on our behalf, such as for performing statistical analysis of our services. We will only provide those companies the personal information they need to deliver the service, and they are prohibited from using that information for any other purpose.â

From the "privacy" statement shipped with every copy of Windows 7.

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (1)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | about 2 years ago | (#40182063)

Except as described in this statement, personal information you provide will not be transferred to third parties without your consent.

Skip that part?

Regardless, the GP asked for a citation of it happening, not whether or not the EULA allowed it. AFAIK, the only things that "phone home" are voluntary error reporting and WGA validation - and I remember something about the latter having been removed.

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182227)

And did you miss this part:

We occasionally hire other companies to provide limited services on our behalf, such as for performing statistical analysis of our services. We will only provide those companies the personal information they need to deliver the service

So they are admitting that they send information to third parties and weasel it up with words like "statistical analysis" which is complete oxymoron as statistics by definition are general and not specific to any individual.

Regardless, the GP asked for a citation of it happening, not whether or not the EULA allowed it.

This isn't criminal court. They are saying right there in their agreement with you that they are going to give your information away to third parties. Are you retarded?

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (0, Troll)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#40181985)

I'm sorry you fail at Google. No, I'm not going to Google that for you. If you don't trust information from the Google, then put a network sniffer on your home network, load a brand new PC with Windows and make it the only device outside of the sniffer on your network. Watch, and be amazed.

Oh, and no.. I'm not going to explain packet sniffing to you nor am I going to help you set one up. You can Google that also.

Read your EULA from MS and find out that you agree to letting them do it!

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182223)

I'm not sure how this is different from any other company? Hell some companies like google purposely invade peoples privacy when they scoop data from wifi networks as they drive around taking pictures of everything they see. Hell both apple and android also phone home data. Unless you know exactly what data is being transmitted across the wire, how do you know its just not sending usage statistics etc home? something even browsers like firefox do, and IDE's like eclipse does?

Hell look at what you agree to just to use this website? just a little taste

Personally identifiable information is any piece of information which can potentially be used to uniquely identify, contact, or locate a user of the Sites (such as name,
email address, postal address, telephone number).

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (0)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#40182365)

The real problem is that you can not determine what your PC is sending to MS or a 3rd party collection site. Some of the packet contents is plain text, but most is encrypted. It was found back in 95b/98 days that they forwarded numbers that were formatted like credit cards and phone numbers as well as information from users housed on the system, and since then they started encrypting traffic.

You have a company that has a history of colluding with ISPs to push IE and give it "features" that were completely insecure but allowed spying and configuration changes without user knowledge (Active Installer IE 5.5). They are known for draconian policies and don't give a rats ass about anything except their profit margins. You trust that you are only sending them what they tell you?

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 years ago | (#40182311)

I'm sorry you fail at Google. No, I'm not going to Google that for you. If you don't trust information from the Google, then put a network sniffer on your home network, load a brand new PC with Windows and make it the only device outside of the sniffer on your network. Watch, and be amazed.

Ahh, hand waving.

I set up Fiddler2 which can even decode HTTPS locally and didn't find anything interesting going over the wire.

So if you have, please share and amaze me and us.

Or provide at least ONE reference that you think is credible, because all I see is BS when I search.

If you cannot, then I'll just assume you're talking BS.

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (-1, Troll)

TheOneTrueOne (2652937) | about 2 years ago | (#40182581)

Are you fucking stupid? How the fuck is packet sniffing going to prove that MS gave your information to a third party? The credible source is in the fucking EULA. Read it, motherfucker. It tells you explicitely that MS will give your info to a third party for so-called "statistical" purposes. Now shut the fuck up, punk.

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (1)

0ld_d0g (923931) | about 2 years ago | (#40181577)

Sorry, but Windows has phoned home for at least 10 years, and sent data without user knowledge to 3rd party companies that could be traced to MS.

Sorry but what data have they collected without your consent? Are you talking about checking to see if you have a valid copy?

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181693)

Yep, and anyone that takes anything MS says at face value is either extremely young or not paying attention.

Re:Who's DNT are they honoring? (4, Insightful)

mystikkman (1487801) | about 2 years ago | (#40182199)

Sorry, but Windows has phoned home for at least 10 years, and sent data without user knowledge to 3rd party companies that could be traced to MS. IE may claim to have DNT on by default, but let's be clear. You will still be sending all kinds of tracking information to MS.

Seems to me to be a ploy to make money selling data to Google perhaps that Google gets now on their own.

This post is a perfect example of horseshit that regularly goes for +5 informative on Slashdot. Websites like Google track you and follow you around the web with ads and customizes the ads to your browsing history. MS? Does it really even know that you visited some site with Google ads on them(most of the websites around)?

> You will still be sending all kinds of tracking information to MS

What kinds of tracking information???

Pass... IE 8 and 9 sucked. (0, Flamebait)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40181273)

They run slow as heck when loading pages (load half the page but then pause before loading the other half), randomly freeze for 30 seconds while "thinking", and gobble-up tons of memory. (Really? A single tab open to slashdot requires 300,000 bytes of RAM?) I don't expect # 10 to be any better and will continue using Firefox or Opera (the latter of which has instant-draw).

Re:Pass... IE 8 and 9 sucked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181419)

Hun? I'm using IE9 and right now it's using 9MB. Thanks for playing; try again.

Re:Pass... IE 8 and 9 sucked. (1, Informative)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 2 years ago | (#40181475)

300,000 bytes is less than 9MB, idiot.

Re:Pass... IE 8 and 9 sucked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181553)

There is no frigen way slashdot is only using 300,000 bytes on IE. Firefox loads 600kb when opening the site.

Re:Pass... IE 8 and 9 sucked. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40181699)

FIX: (Really? A single tab open to slashdot requires 300,000 [kilo]bytes of RAM?) I don't expect # 10 to be any better and will continue using Firefox or Opera.

Re:Pass... IE 8 and 9 sucked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182205)

Really? You complain about memory usage and then say you will keep using Firefox.

IE 9 was slower than both Firefox and Chrome, but it used less memory than Firefox.

Job is not done until Google is dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181275)

Of coarse, windows itself keep track of lots. This is a fight for control of the common idiot of whom Apple has a huge and trendy lock upon and growing at Microsoft's expense. MS will fight from it corporate and personal computing redoubt, first Google then Apple.

Those who control the common idiot controls everything.

The Real Question (5, Interesting)

clarkn0va (807617) | about 2 years ago | (#40181303)

Will the next version of Windows be the first in decades to not collect personally identifiable information from every user, by way of activation and other control schemes?

It might make the marketeers feel all good inside to spout platitudes like "private by default' in an era when so much user data is collected online," but let MS apply the same sacrosanct wisdom to its own practise.

Re:The Real Question (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#40181585)

huh? they're pushing you to use your live account just to log in to your own computer and to user programs provided through their store framework. if anything it's opposite of that. sure it's private by default - but not to ms!

Re:The Real Question (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 years ago | (#40181687)

>by way of activation and other control schemes

Windows Activation collects personally identifiable information? Maybe only for the very few ones who have to call in.

> and other control schemes?

What other control schemes? You're clutching at straws here.

Re:The Real Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182401)

Such as? When you register your OS, you don't send any PII. When you send information to Windows Error Reporting you aren't sending any PII. When you use Windows Live, you aren't sending any PII. MSFT has no way to know if your account is used be one or more people and no way to verify that any registration information you gave was accurate.

They will get your IP, so that could be used to identify you, but in that case, any online service you've ever used also has the same information, so....

What, exactly, is it that you think is happening here, and what bits of PII are being sent to / taken by Microsoft?

Three word summary (2)

mtrachtenberg (67780) | about 2 years ago | (#40181433)

Take that, Google.

(or, in reality, an alternative three words beginning with the letter f.)

Re:Three word summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181941)

(or, in reality, an alternative three words beginning with the letter f.)

Fried fish fillet?

Usefulness (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#40181459)

How can we ever be sure that the server is actually honoring the Do Not Track request? Even if it was mandated by the law, I believe it's hard to monitor what's happening behind the scenes of some website.

Do we really want this? (2)

roosauce (2652911) | about 2 years ago | (#40181511)

This is a potential disaster in my eyes. We're talking about destroying the commercial web here. Advertising, for all its foibles, underpins vast amounts of free content and services. Data largely drives that value these days, by making ad distribution more efficient. The vast majority of the data underpinning this is anonymous - no names, no email addresses, no phone numbers - just general preferences inferred from the types of sites people visit. DNT is not defined yet, but I suggest that a lot of your favourite websites are supported or helped by this data. Even slashdot has advertising these days. Slashdotters have a choice by nature of knowing how things work, but there's also some pretty decent advertising industry programs aimed at giving information and choice to consumers. Blanket DNT could seriously destroy businesses at-scale. I'm really worried about this move.

considering content providers (1)

Jim McKim (207049) | about 2 years ago | (#40181535)

Thus encouraging content providers that get revenue from collecting info from ignoring the request (by default)

Re:considering content providers (1)

roosauce (2652911) | about 2 years ago | (#40181747)

Yeah, this is a bit of an issue for me. DNT is a value in the header, nothing more. However it pans out, 'good' companies will end up respecting it, and everyone else - probably the nasties - won't care. P3P, if you remember it, required anyone setting cookies to declare their privacy policy in the header. I'm really not sure why that's been thrown out but, whilst being more granular in privacy statements, it also allowed anyone to simply lie and the browser wouldn't know the difference. Not all cookies are evil, so the question is how to reliably identify those set by respectable businesses that follow the prevailing guidelines and are interested in being 'good'.

MS and facebook (2)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#40181595)

MS is a major investor in facebook
DNT might be on but if you like every other website than facebook will be getting a lot of data that google won't be

DNT is Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40181717)

Is it just me or is everyone confused about DNT? It is a header, a suggestion, nothing more. It changes absolutely nothing about how a web site could track you. Even if it was legally enforced, a web site could STILL track you without violating the legality.

The only way to prevent a web site from tracking you is to not visit it at all (or block it completely). Anything else is a false sense of privacy, and that's exactly what this DNT header is giving people.

The first? really!? (2)

s1d3track3D (1504503) | about 2 years ago | (#40181771)

This step will make Internet Explorer 10 the first web browser with DNT on by default.

define 'web browser'. I believe none of the following track anything
Lynx
Links
Dillo

I'm sure there are many others,...

Re:The first? really!? (1)

s1d3track3D (1504503) | about 2 years ago | (#40181937)

I believe none of the following track anything

What? great logic, maybe you mean, "I believe the following do not track user behavior" but either way that has nothing to do with DNT, maybe you should go get some coffee and pay attention before posting.

Re:The first? really!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40182217)

s1d3track3D - I believe none of the following track anything

s1d3track3D - What? great logic, maybe you mean, "I believe the following do not track user behavior" but either way that has nothing to do with DNT, maybe you should go get some coffee and pay attention before posting.

Are you arguing with yourself?

Industry solutions (like DNT) are voluntary (1)

mounthood (993037) | about 2 years ago | (#40182109)

Industry solutions (like DNT) are voluntary, unenforceable, empty gestures. DNT has almost no meaning, simply expressing the desire that things were different somehow, without defining how they should be different. DNT is less then an EULA -- it doesn't even ask for an "I Agree" response from the server. Will IIS implement a DNT response? Chrome 12 stopped downloading files without a content length header, so why aren't we reading about browsers demanding a valid DNT response?

It isn't surprising or disappointing that companies would engage in such an empty gesture, but Mozilla really let us down by encouraging this.

DNT: 1

It should be noted that MS doesn't honor DNT (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 2 years ago | (#40182179)

"Microsoft does not yet respond to the DNT signal, but we are actively working with other advertising industry leaders on what an implementation plan for DNT might look like, with a goal of announcing more details about our plans in the coming months."

http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/05/31/advancing-consumer-trust-and-privacy-internet-explorer-in-windows-8.aspx [technet.com]

So basically, this is all about screwing anyone who honors DNT by competitively disadvantaging them in the marketplace relative to Microsoft -- a statement I'll happily retract as soon as they start honoring DNT themselves, rather than just using it as an anticompetitive weapon in IE10.

This pretty much implies they are once again wielding their monopolistic power in the marketplace to promote their own products and services. Isn't this what got them into trouble last time?

-- Terry

This will make DNT useless (1)

caspy7 (117545) | about 2 years ago | (#40182341)

The point is to give users the choice to choose not to be tracked.
If everyone is "choosing" not be tracked by default then no one will honor it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...