Microsoft Reaffirms Default Do-Not-Track For IE10, Windows 8 Express Setup 184
Billly Gates writes "Microsoft has confirmed that Internet Explorer 10 will have Do-Not-Track settings enabled by default. IE 10 comes with Windows 8, and will go release candidate for Windows 7 very soon, according to Anne Kohn in a comment in IE's blog. During Windows 8 setup, users who choose the 'Express' option will have DNT on by default, while using the 'Custom' option will give them the chance to change the setting, if they want. IE 10 already has a score of 319 in html5test.com, while MS is trying to position IE as a great browser again. Will this pressure other browsers such as Firefox and Opera to do the same?"
When Microsoft began talking about this in May, it touched off quite a debate at W3C about whether browsers should have DNT turned on by default or not.
Everyone is Super? (Score:2)
I wonder what websites will do once almost everyone has Do Not Track enabled. If it's just a few nerds... let's stop tracking them if they insist. If it's everyone...?
"And when everyone is Super... no one will be!" ---The Incredibles
Re:Everyone is Super? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much. Short of government regulation we as a community can't actually compel advertisers to do anything (just getting them to acknowledge DNT in the first place was a small miracle), so if we actually make it hard for them to do their thing they'll just ignore DNT entirely.
Wouldn't it be nice (Score:3)
If all the browser support of Javascript, css and html5 was close to the same.
I know... I know...
Firefox (Score:2)
I doubt if Firefox is going to do this anytime soon.
This is the reason Google made Chrome and also support Firefox monetarily.
Re: (Score:2)
You're quite right. Mozilla, who has help to push Do Not Track and the first to implement it, is very much against turning it on by default. Doing so simply deflates the effort.
MS may very well have this in mind.
Re: (Score:2)
How altruistic of them (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Incompatible (Score:3)
This website is incompatible with the Do Not Track feature of your browser. Please disable the feature and hit refresh to try again.
Re: (Score:2)
There are millions of other websites. I normally close the page and no more visit the website if it tries to bully me (force me to disable AdBlock or force me to register before I can see the article ...)
Re: (Score:3)
There are millions of other websites. I normally close the page and no more visit the website if it tries to bully me (force me to disable AdBlock or force me to register before I can see the article ...)
It hardly counts as a bullying tactic - if you refuse to pay the cover charge (eg watch a few ads) then you shouldn't be allowed in.
If a site asks me to turn off ad block or register (for a service I don't want to register for) then like you, I just go somewhere else, but I don't go around claiming they are bullying me.
Re: (Score:2)
What if DoubleClick/AdSense sites require it. That would shut down a significant portion of the web.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering Google already does something similar for Google Analytics (Google owns DoubleClick, remember, so DoubleClick and AdSense are one and the same now) - i.e., it can require javascript to be enabled for GA, it's very possible that Google will require it. Most javascript blockers do implement stub functions to get around the click-tracking (it's been around a few years, but there's bound to be more).
R
Dear rats... (Score:2)
...please do not leave the ship. The water entering the hull is a feature and nothing to worry about.
Great browser? (Score:2)
while MS is trying to position IE as a great browser again.
I can't remember anyone ever saying IE was great.
Re: (Score:3)
When it had to beat netscape, Explorer was a good browser. If it ever manages to become relevant again, it will try to make it difficult for everybody else again. All corporations behave the same way, not all have the levers MS can pull, but that's a technicality.
Good! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what's the point of having it if it's just going to be on for everyone? Might as well just make a do-not-track rule that advertisers should follow.
The problem is that much of the web is funded by advertising, so people blocking advertising (or making it less effective) means that sites will either shut down or need to charge customers/visitors in other ways.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree to an extent about advertising. I actually think advertising is in a way getting worse. There are two scenarios usually. One is no matter what you like you get those ugly ads about weight loss, nicer teeth or younger skin (the one that looks like grandma is peeling off a layer of flesh) or you see an ad for
Doesn't matter (Score:2)
So every script that handles DNT will start with something like "if browser=="IE10" and dnt=="1" then dnt=null", treating IE users the same as any other user that did not set the DNT flag explicitly. No harm done, except to people who are savvy enougth to know about DNT and still use IE (and they really have nobody to blame except themselves).
Now, while we're on the subject, could browser makers please make the "Accept-Language" also default to null unless the user sets it explicitly? If I set it to "en-us"
Yes but.... (Score:2)
http://www.iegallery.com/en-US/trackingprotectionlists [iegallery.com]
Why doesn't anyone use these?
MS has given the ability to filter this stuff out already. Nobody looks though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do-nut track? (Score:2)
Is that like a mobile speed camera detection system?
Adblocker (Score:2)
If the ad companies ignore Internet Explorer's DNT, then Microsoft should respond by adding an adblocker that blocks them.
This is actually a good business strategy for them :
1.It benefits consumers because they get an integrated adblocker and it establishes customer goodwill and a reason to upgrade IE.
2.It would seriously hurt Google. Microsoft's revenue from online advertising is peanuts; their profit is in their software. By contrast, Google's only real source of income is online advertising.
Microsoft is in the right (Score:2)
Thank you for looking after the consumer.
Do-not-track should be enabled by default. The problem is not that "it will be rendered worthless", the problem is that it IS worthless, currently. Do-not-spam-me-with-unwanted-telemarketers should be the default too. The reason the Do-Not-Call lists work is that there is legislative teeth behind them, not that it is opt-in. Do-not-track is a lame attempt at self-regulating to avoid regulation, a veneer of respecting privacy in an industry where the most profit is
Re: (Score:2)
Still violates the HTML5 standard (Score:3)
I said this in June, but it still stands (unless the draft standard has been updated, but I couldn't find anything). The latest draft of the standard states "[a]n ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user's explicit consent." Having it set by default, without any input from the user, violates that. That seems about as simple as you can get.
I agree with a lot of others. This voluntary DNT stuff doesn't really have any teeth. The only real reason for anyone to honor it is to avoid real regulation (which may or may not actually be enough to keep sites honest). However, enabling it by default will definitely ensure that advertisers do not honor it (at least for that browser). Advertisers will not voluntarily stop for all users of a certain browser based on a default browser setting (where the browser maker is the one deciding, rather than the user). I will admit that this leads to the question of whether or not they'd actually stop even if DNT is explicitly set by the user.
I still feel that a question during the IE first-run wizard is the best solution. MS can present the benefits and privacy implications of choosing whether or not to allow advertiser tracking, without any default value. The setting would be user-set regardless of whether they choose yes or no.
This could actually come back to hurt IE10 users overall. As other commenters have suggested, there's some gray area over what exactly constitutes explicit user consent regarding the setting. If IE10 sets this without any user intervention, advertisers have a not-totally-unreasonable excuse to ignore DNT from IE10, since it's a browser default rather than a user preference. An advertiser could continue to honor DNT for browsers where it is an explicit user preference, while ignoring it for only IE10 (in an effort to reduce ire toward them from DNT users without crippling themselves on all IE10 users). The IE10 users who actually want DNT may find that they can't actually use DNT, since advertisers assume it's just a browser default and ignore it. You end up with DNT working in Firefox, Chrome, etc. (when the user sets the preference) but not ever working in IE10.
DNT is a compromise between users and advertisers. Setting DNT as a browser default shoots that compromise in the face, making it almost expected for advertisers to stop honoring it.
This is similar to Microsoft's attempt to have IE8 render in standards-mode only if a special meta tag was included [invisibill.net]. This would allow IE8 to render old, broken sites with the old, broken rendering engine while new compliant sites would be rendered with the great new rendering engine (as long as the new page included the special tag to tell IE8 that it really, really, really meant that the code should be rendered as written). They're trying to achieve what end users really want, but going about it in the worst possible way. Is it really that hard to have one more screen asking the user if they want DNT or not? That would completely avoid the issue of whether or not it was an explicit preference set by the user, and pretty much dismiss all of the tech community's complaints. There's still the issue of whether or not advertisers would actually honor it, but that's an issue for all browsers in general.
Re:Do not what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Do not what? (Score:5, Informative)
HTTP header to request "opt out" of any tracking on websites you visit.
i.e. will be ignored by just about everyone by default anyway, and even when you "opt out" you can still be tracked by most websites in the world, and turning it on or off will have virtually zero visible effect to the user so you'll never know even if the website "accidentally" tracked you anyway.
Worthless, ill-designed, junk.
Re:Do not what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I don't know what people are smoking these days, but you've got to be seriously delusional if you think that Do Not Track is going to be respected in any way. They'll track anyway, and if they get busted, they'll call out the lawyer brigades and nothing will fucking happen. Hell, maybe they'll even end up with some sweet legal precedent saying they have every right to track us if we deign to navigate to one of their websites.
I trust NoScript and Adblock, I sure as shit do not trust "we won't track you, we promise!"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I don't know what people are smoking these days, but you've got to be seriously delusional if you think that Do Not Track is going to be respected in any way.
They could pass a law.
That would mean the major advertisers would have to respect it, although all advertisers are sleazy by nature so they'll try to get around it by becoming even more sleazy than they already are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'll track anyway, and if they get busted, they'll call out the lawyer brigades and nothing will fucking happen.
More like:
They'll track anyway, and if they get busted, they'll say "Oh, that was an accident, we didn't do that on purpose, really". A couple people will sue, they'll throw a couple million to shut them up, while they count the tens/hundreds of millions of ad money they got for 'targetted ads'. Then they'll stop for a bit. Then they'll track anyway, ... and if they......
See Google, see Facebook - over and over again.
Re:Do not what? (Score:5, Funny)
Worthless, ill-designed, junk.
Nooooo!?! Next thing you are going to tell me is that the hackers disregard RFC3514 [ietf.org] during attacks???
Re:Do not what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Do not what? (Score:4, Insightful)
And the question of DNT being an explicit opt-out at all, or even getting to the remote server intact, is dubious.
If you pop up a message on the front page of a website that says "can we track you for the next week?" and the user says yes, but their browser is still pushing DNT, do you think the website should not track anything anyway? They have EXPLICIT permission to do so. And on a visible, obvious, user-controlled way, that the user COULD NOT IGNORE or forget, that can be easily seen by any idiot, rather than some obscure browser setting in only some browsers, that makes no visible change to the average user, and that may not ever be able to be tweaked by the user.
It's worthless, in law and in usage. And it doesn't express the user's desire if it is on by default and the user has to specifically turn it off. It just expresses the software manufacturer's desire (and, if as the article states, installs of Windows will have it on by default, it means even less in terms of what the user wants).
I'm not stupid, I doubt there are people who WANT to be tracked or wouldn't turn it on if they understand what it was supposed to do. But it doesn't. And never will. And saying that a hidden HTTP header that could easily be stripped by intervening proxy servers that don't understand it (and be untraceable as to WHERE that header got stripped off, and thus useless in court) overrides the explicit, visible, non-accidental obtained consent of users with an associated privacy policy available to them is just ludicrous.
There will NEVER be a court case about DNT usage on a website. Because it's not binding in *any* country at all and it certainly can't be taken as a revocation of previous consent (thus it is overrode by anything that the websites ALREADY have deployed to comply with EU cookie laws, for example) without a suitable legal precedent, which itself is somewhere incredibly unlikely and impossible.
Is DNT an opt-out for THIS session? This page? This browser? This IP? This logged-in-user? Forever? Does it override previous decisions? Does its absence override its prior presence (i.e. now you surf without DNT, we can take that as consent for all the previous sessions too?). It's so vague as to be absolutely pointless.
It *does not* do what it was designed for, helps no-one (not even advertisers or users), and is a ginormous waste of money to deploy for everyone involved (from browsers to users to websites to policy makers to the government to legal cases, etc.).
Re:Do not what? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm a professional web developer of 16 years+, and I don't know what "Do Not Track" is.
No need to embarrass yourself in front of the class dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Boy should you be glad you posted that comment as AC. Anyway, http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/dnt/ [mozilla.org]
What is Do Not Track?
Do Not Track is a step toward putting you in control of the way your information is collected and used online. Do Not Track is a feature in Firefox that allows you to let a website know you would like to opt-out of third-party tracking for purposes including behavioral advertising. It does this by transmitting a Do Not Track HTTP header every time your data is requested from the Web.
Well, considering MS is a grey evil (Score:5, Insightful)
DNT only works if websites honor it. Some have already said that if browsers turned it on by default, they would not honor it. So... could MS, a company with a long history of embrace and strange while raping it up the ass, be enabling it by default to give websites an excuse to ignore it and thereby kill it from within while appearing to the gullible as a nice company?
Well, Soulskill sure is gullible enough. a great browser again. Indeed.
It ain't Paranoia if you think MS is out to screw everyone else. In fact, that is hopelessly naive. MS happily screws itself too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MS makes money by selling stuff, and then locking people in. Google for example makes money by advertisement, which made more valuable by tracking people. So maybe Microsoft decided since they don't have to loose anything on this, they might as well claim the moral high ground: "our browser respects your privacy etc."
If it's disabled by default, who honors it is pretty much irrelevan
Re: (Score:2)
The bottom half of that post got gobbled up, sorry:
"That's some nice traffic you got there.. would be a shame if it dried up..." <-- what makes you think websites get to dictate shit? I'm not content with that approach. If they won't do the right thing, let's make them. This is Sparta, after all.
What, exactly, does Microsoft have to gain from random websites tracking their users?
MS tracks, too -- and doesn't respect DNT (Score:2)
MS also makes money by advertisement, though they've been less successful at it than Google. Of course, since unlike Google they don't respect DNT on the backend, their competitive position in advertising with respect to Google's would change if one of the major browsers went DNT by default so that Google wouldn't track its users, while MS would continue t
Re: (Score:2)
Oh lol. God you're full of shit, aren't you. So MS = bad, Google = good? And the rest follows from there, since you just make it up? Good we discusses this. Anyone else want to have a go?
Re: (Score:2)
Bad or good don't figure into it. DNT by default in the client favors those people who make money on tracking (for instance, advertising vendors) that do not respect DNT on the backend, and gives them a competitive advantage against those people who make money by tracking that do respect DNT on the backend.
Microsoft is a firm that makes money by tracking and doesn't respect DNT on the backend.
Microsoft is also a major browser vendor, and is implementing DNT-by-default on the clie
Re:Wait a minute, (Score:4, Insightful)
IE 10 already has a score of 319 in html5test.com, while MS is trying to position IE as a great browser again.
Again!? Implying it was great once? What have I missed? I've been in web development for around 12 years now, and I most certainly do not remember ever having many nice things to say about IE. Or do you mean great, as in having the majority monopoly-based userbase?
10 years ago how well did Netscape 4.7 do CSS compared to IE 6? ... thats what I thought.
Soulskill edited my entry as I put a whim of sarcasm stating slashdotters and webmasters favorite browser (sarcasm intended). Needless to say I remember IE 6 frustratingly and angrily beating Netscape quite well as it was the first browser to support the proper box model as long as it didn't go into quirks mode. I wanted Netscape to win but 10 years ago went to IE 6 and it was a better browser. IE 5 was not bad either and invented AJAX. IE 6 is just well very old and not meant for anything but simple 50k websites with 2 or 3 tiny 25k pics with a css that is about half dozen lines or less usually specifying fonts or something silly. Not the bloated sites we have today. The things it does wrong are were very cutting edge and not standardized in 2001. It is similiar to alot of css 3 stuff I see with different arguments for color picking a gradient for example. W3c will pick one syntax in 10 years times and one of the browsers today wont be standards complaint with it in the future. IE 6 shouldn't have been used for so long.
MS let it rot and did not fix the rendering bugs nor the huge security risks as MS thought we would all be using Vista and IE 7 by 2005 (2004 was Longhorns original date if I remember correctly) and the delaying made things worse.
Anyway give MS credit for at least trying to make a somewhat decent browser and making your life as a web developer easier. IE 10 is supposed to be truly competitive to Firefox and Chrome which is good for METRO developers. Remember people like your Mom, grandparents, Chinese, and corporate employers wont ever switch no matter how much we beg. At least let them enjoy a somewhat similar browsing experience you have at home. I saw a benchmark testing emca javascript and IE 10 was the most compliant browser out there. It will make everyone's life easier if people use 1 standard for the internet and IE is catching up finally.
Re:Wait a minute, (Score:4, Insightful)
10 years ago how well did Netscape 4.7 do CSS compared to IE 6?
10 years ago Netscape 4.7 had been abandoned several years: Netscape 6, on the other hand wiped the floor with IE 6 on CSS, although admittedly, it sucked in numerous other ways.
Wrong thinking (Score:2)
If I race an olympic athlete, my result will suck.
If I race a dead person, my result will STILL suck even if I win.
You can be better then your competition AND still be crap. In the land of the blind, one-eye is king, but not automatically a great king.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been in web development for around 12 years now, and I most certainly do not remember ever having many nice things to say about IE
As the other poster said, you missed most of the development of the web. Between about 1996 and 2000, there were massive regular releases of browsers and people actually cared about upgrading because they got new features. There were also a lot of sites with 'Designed for IE' or 'Designed for Netscape' on them, so you typically had both installed so you could switch between them. Opera was either ad-supported or expensive, so the two free browsers were IE and Netscape. IE 3 was reasonable, but not espec
Re: (Score:2)
Again!? Implying it was great once?
IE3 was pretty good and I liked IE4 as well. At least it was a whole lot better than the big mess Netscape presented with Navigator 4.
Nothing but misery after that though.
Re:Wait a minute, (Score:5, Informative)
Wow! A score of 319 is really impressive!
Wait hang on.
* Chrome 22: 442
* Chrome 21: 437
* Opera 12.50: 409
* Firefox 14: 345
Sure its better than IE 9, but a modern browser it is not.
Doesn't even come close to stable Firefox.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sod that. It doesn't even come close to Opera Mobile!
Re:Wait a minute, (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently, even Konqueror - which hasn't really been under active development for years and had very little funding before then - manages to score 321.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're behind the curve for sure, but it *is* a significant step forward.
IE9 scores 138. Firefox 14 scores 345. IE10 scores 319.
Yes, it's still the worst of the major browsers, but the distance is smaller, scoring 92% of firefox is a LOT better than 40% which is the current status.
Re:Wait a minute, (Score:4, Interesting)
So we no more play the ACID test game?
Re:yay! (Score:5, Interesting)
But in this case, it's horribly wrong.
This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
Re:yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you think it was DOA anyways? The system depended upon honest advertisers, which is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
Re:yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
Kudos to Microsoft for calling it like it is on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:yay! (Score:4, Informative)
And, in the meantime, give trackers that don't support DNT on the backend (like Microsoft) an temporary advantage over those that do (like Google.)
The system depended on the advertising industry thinking that adhering to the voluntary system was at least as good of a deal as what they'd get under a regulatory regime, since the whole purpose of the voluntary system was to stave off threats of regulation.
Its unlikely that the industry would see a an opt-in requirement imposed in a regulatory regime, though an opt-out requirement would be quite likely. It therefore makes no sense for the industry to prefer an opt-in voluntary scheme, though an opt-out voluntary scheme is certainly worthwhile.
boo! (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod parent up please.
Even the folks who have gotten behind DNT and pushed are against this.
The only reason I can think that MS would do this is either for appearance or because they know it would destroy the effort, or both.
Re:boo! (Score:5, Informative)
It won't screw Google over. The most relevant legislation with regard to DNT is the EU directive which says you must not track a user if they express a desire not to be tracked. However, if the header is sent by default, then Google can convincingly argue that the user has not expressed this desire. If, however, it is off by default, then this argument would be nonsense because the user must have explicitly enabled it.
I would love to see it as a setting with no default and a prompt when you install the browser, so that every user must make a conscious decision to either be tracked or not be tracked.
Re:boo! (Score:5, Interesting)
The article on Ars Technica states that the EU authorities stand behind DNT by default which if true means that Google can argue nothing (at least in Europe)
Re: (Score:2)
What if some European citizens sue Google and claim it did not honor their setting and DNT request?
Default assumptions (Score:3)
Looking at Microsoft's business model, on the one hand you have companies like Google, Facebook (and many iOS apps) which raise money through advertising (advertising is a source of income) and Microsoft and companies like RIM which raise money through licensing fees and direct sales (advertising is
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And in Europe we tend to see privacy as opt-out rather than opt-in.
Are you living in the same Europe as me? Where your cars are regularly tracked by ANPR [wikipedia.org]. Where many states have compulsory ID cards [wikipedia.org]. Where communictaions companies have to install boxes to collect data for the government" [channel4.com]
Not much "opt out" there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's weird. It is the complete opposite in the US. It is illegal for the government to snoop, but companies can track any information they want as long as they don't violate private property rights.
And I trust companies more than the State. The State can invade my privacy by force. The corporation requires me to divulge it voluntarily.
Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, the state exists to serve the corporations and the corps express their control by whom they have paid in campaign donations, hiring of relatives, lining their pockets with de facto bribes in the form of perks, and sometimes outright bribery although in a form not directly detectable (usually). Remember Hilary Clinton and the cattle futures? Most recently, Nationwide providing very sub-prime mortgages? All that and more. Occasionally the government slaves are busted, usually only after comple
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Using a browser which has DNT set by default" could itself be taken as expressing such a preference.
When it's bundled as standard with the operating system installed on 95% of all PCs? That doesn't make much sense - it's not like most people use IE because they chose it over some other browser.
Re:boo! (Score:4)
I would love to see it as a setting with no default and a prompt when you install the browser, so that every user must make a conscious decision to either be tracked or not be tracked.
But here's the thing. In spite of all this so-called debate, let's be honest, how many ordinary people are going to answer "Yes" to the question "Would you like other companies to be able to watch and compile databases of everything you do online?" ... I'm guessing approximately NOBODY. Who actually likes being watched?
However, if the header is sent by default, then Google can convincingly argue that the user has not expressed this desire
Actually, I'm willing to guess that a decent lawyer could convince a court that a reasonable person can be presumed by default to prefer not to be watched, given that pretty much nobody likes being watched. Put it another way, should you have to expressly opt out of me installing a camera in your bathroom, or can you by default be presumed to prefer that I not put a camera in your bathroom? The presence of a DNT selection, which people will rightfully not turn on, could clinch it. I suspect this is why the debate around this is so strong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
how many ordinary people are going to answer "Yes" to the question "Would you like other companies to be able to watch and compile databases of everything you do online?" ... I'm guessing approximately NOBODY
If you say "do you want to have your online movements tracked and get nothing in exchange" I guess you'd be right. But sometimes there are benefits to the consumer to being tracked, so you may have different answers if you asked "do you want to have your online movements tracked in exchange for a pony"... See: store loyalty cards.
Re: (Score:3)
how many ordinary people are going to answer "Yes" to the question "Would you like other companies to be able to watch and compile databases of everything you do online?" ... I'm guessing approximately NOBODY.
How many ordinary people are going to answer "Yes" to the question "Would you like to see advertisements and information tailored to your actual interests, rather than random ads?" ... I'm guessing MOST PEOPLE.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of people would express a preference to be tracked online if given the choice? Yes/No.
"The majority of people would express a preference to allow commercial entitities and advertisers to offer them a richer, more relevant, and more personalized web surfing experience if given the choice? Yes/No."
Look around you. The answer is "Yes."
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't misinterpret and misconstrue, he amplified to rediculous proportions to open your eyes to the fact that people don't want to be stalked. Why is it illegal for my ex-wife to stalk me, but OK for a website to?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft's business model is based on selling you OS and productivity software. Google's business model is based on tracking you, in order to deliver targeted advertising. So yeah, I'd think the former stands more to benefit than the latter via enabling this, but much as I dislike MS, in this case it seems beneficial to consumers as well as MS. Personally, I'm a bit tired of all this increased online tracking these days, and I think the only reason Joe Public hasn't revolted is most people don't know just
Screwing Google over (Score:3)
That's obviously the reason. The key point to keep in mind is that while Microsoft is going overboard with DNT-by-default, they also don't support DNT at all on their own sites, whereas Google does support DNT on their sites (and does so because DNT is supposed to be used as off-by-default, as an opt-out mechanism for tracking.)
IE going DNT-by-default means Google will either have to:
1. Abandon existing DNT support on their sites (leading to, at best, adverse PR, and
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is just IE 10 users won't be able to DNT; as the browsers should make explicitly an opt in choice (ideally hidden somewhere). Now to opt into it they would have to change there user-agent or something else far harder than it should be.
If win8 adoption is slow then everything will be fine for everyone else.
Re:yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
Good. The do-not-track project as designed by Mozilla and Google is worthless, and I'm reasonably sure it's intentionally broken. It's just trusting the web site to agree to your browser's plea to please not track it; there is no enforcement mechanism, and no way to even know your request is honored or not. A proper design would not even connect to a tracker's web site.
Of course, Google has a major conflict of interest in this - tracking people is what makes them the big money; that's why I suspect Mozilla and Google came up with this "design", pretending to care about privacy while aware that many users aren't knowledgeable or caring enough to set the DNT flag, and also on the fact that when push comes to shove they can just ignore the "don't track" request. Microsoft is pretty much calling their bluff there.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the architects are hoping that only 1% of users will enable it, and those 1% aren't really valuable to advertisers anyway (it might even be more valuable to know who they are than to track them).
If it's on by default then yeah, it'll die. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Re: (Score:3)
But in this case, it's horribly wrong.
This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
I don't understand this argument (I know it after much discussion was the compromise in the standard, but it is not a good one). Do not stalk me unless I allow you to should be the default expected behavior. That the built-in popup-blocker block popup ads by default doesn't give the website any right to claim that I didn't really actively choose to block popup ads so they are free to circumvent it.
It seems some people were hoping advertisers would respect their settings to opt-out, as long as not too many
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is that most users don't really mind being tracked, but certainly aren't going to go out of their way to enable it. The majority just doesn't care enough to actively turn DNT on, even if it's easy to find in the settings.
That's very different from pop-ups, which are immediately obnoxious and swear-inducing.
From my own experience, I suspect this is in fact true. Regular people just aren't up in arms about tracking, even though everybody knows it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is that most users don't really mind being tracked
I like how you equate being tracked to donating organs (same mechanism). Must be USian thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I'm Canadian, but in any case I don't see your point. How did I equate DNT to donating organs? And is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Re: (Score:2)
This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Could users possibly sue websites if they find the website has not honored their DNT settings?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but are you really going to try and sue a Bermudan company for tracking you (or wherever they'll put the servers if this ever becomes legally enforceable...)
Only one thing is certain about DNT: It won't stop anybody from tracking you.
What we really need is a browser which detects tracking and randomizes results. Make it pointless to even try tracking you.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually see it more as a "fuck you" to Google. Do not track screws with anyone who's revenue comes from tracking people & their online interactions.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Microsoft gets revenue that way, but DNT by default doesn't screw with them because -- unlike Google -- they don't actually support DNT at all on the backend.
Which is a big factor in why they are overly enthusiastic in supporting it in their browser. It screws with their competitors that actually respect DNT preferences based on the DNT design, which
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But in this case, it's horribly wrong.
This will effectively KILL the do-not-track project.
Perhaps. But that reveals the underlying flaw in the do no track (DNT) idea (even if companies want to honor it): It doesn't work if everyone opts not to be tracked. There's just too much perceived value from tracking users. When it's less than 1% of the total users asking not to be tracked, marketers don't really lose anything by honoring the system. But setting IE 10 to use DNT by default means 95+% of IE 10 users will be using DNT. That's a huge market share gone,
And maybe more importantly, DNT becomes n
IANAL but there is a potential *big* problem (Score:2)
if a site choose to ignore the DNT setting of IE10:
How can the site reliably determine whether the user behind the browser has actually explicitly taken the decision? If an online ad agency decides to ignore the DNT preferences of *all* IE10 users, they will invariably violate the right to not be tracked of a *number* of users.
This could easily land the advertiser in a serious conflict with the EU commision, and if found guilty of ignoring users' wishes they could end up with a *hefty* penalty - and
Re:yay! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is such bullshit. But you kinda have to argue so I can refute you.
If anything, DNT is killed by it being dependant on what websites say they would or would not honor.
It would also be effectively killed if it was OFF by default, since most people will have it off, so even if websites don't track a bunch of nerds, that doesn't mean shit in the big picture.
Let's recap: The rapist is proposing he won't rape, if 98% of people will "consent" to sex. And then someone says "let's not consent by default", so the rapist says "then I won't cooperate". And you FUCKING blame the person who made the sensible suggestion?
Positive moderation doesn't mean it's not stupid. It just means the moderators are stupid, too, the end.
Re: (Score:2)
"But Johann, why would someone be so lame?"
"My child, because *they* know about the possibility to opt out, and find that standing up to something, even though they're not among the victims themselves, is just being silly."
"Is that why they conveniently project their own wickedness on Microsoft, not to mention because it's so super easy, Microsoft generally being evil and all that?"
"Hmmm, you might be on to something here. But then again you'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To use Metro apps, you need a Microsoft signon.
BS. You do not need to be logged in with a MS account to run Metro style apps.