Microsoft sticks to default Do Not Track settings in IE 10
37 replies, posted
[URL]http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-sticks-to-default-do-not-track-settings-in-ie-10-7000002289/[/URL]
[I][I]Online advertisers and analytics companies were furious with Microsoft's decision to enable Do Not Track as a default in IE 10. Microsoft today announced it's sticking to its guns. How will the tracking industry respond?[/I][/I]
[quote]
When Microsoft shipped its Release Preview of Windows 8 in June, it announced that the default browser, Internet Explorer 10, would have the Do Not Track (DNT) signal enabled by default. That action [URL="http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/do-not-track-debate-reveals-cracks-in-online-privacy-consensus/5077"]unleashed a heated debate[/URL] in the Tracking Protection Working Group of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
To the advertising and analytics companies that make up the tracking industry, this issue is an existential one. If the default browser in the world’s most popular operating system is set to disallow tracking, the effect would be profoundly disruptive to companies that live and die by their ability to follow users around the web.
After much discussion, the working group agreed that DNT could only be turned on by a browser if that decision "reflects the user’s preference." The result was a consensus by the working group that a browser (technically, a user-agent) should not enable DNT by default.
Today, Microsoft answered those critics by saying it still intends to enable DNT in Internet Explorer in IE 10. But the final released version will make one concession, according to Microsoft Chief Privacy Officer Brendon Lynch, who announced the decision [URL="http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/08/07/do-not-track-in-the-windows-8-set-up-experience.aspx"]in a blog post[/URL]:
DNT will be enabled in the “Express Settings” portion of the Windows 8 set-up experience. There, customers will also be given a “Customize” option, allowing them to easily switch DNT “off” if they’d like.
Microsoft says anyone who goes through the express setup will know without question that they’re agreeing to enable DNT:
Customers will receive prominent notice that their selection of Express Settings turns DNT “on.” In addition, by using the Customize approach, users will be able to independently turn “on” and “off” a number of settings, including the setting for the DNT signal. A “Learn More” link with detailed information about each recommended setting will help customers decide whether to select Express Settings or Customize. A Privacy Statement link is also available on the screen. Windows 7 customers using IE10 will receive prominent notice that DNT is turned on in their new browser, together with a link providing more information about the setting.
The decision is likely to inspire more outrage from the W3C Tracking Protection Working Group, which is in the homestretch of its standards-setting process.
One of Microsoft’s most ardent foes in this debate is Mike Zaneis, SVP & General Counsel of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, who has [URL="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jul/0156.html"]argued strenuously[/URL] that the tracking industry should feel free to ignore DNT signals from anyone using any browser that enables DNT by default:
This group has decided that browsers should be shipped with DNT turned off. Furthermore, we have agreed that browsers shipped with DNT turned on would be non-compliant with the spec (Aleecia has been very public with this position). Therefore, a company can be compliant with the W3C spec and ignore a signal that they know to have been sent by a default setting.
The question ultimately comes down to defaults. Both sides know that most users are inclined to accept the default settings rather than go through a customization process. The tracking industry wants that default to be “Go ahead and track me, I don’t care,” while Microsoft argues that displaying the effect of the default settings diuring initial setup is sufficient to ensure that the DNT setting matches the user’s intent.
If the W3C working group ultimately sides with the tracking industry, the effect on users will be pure confusion. The IAB argues that it’s OK to completely ignore a DNT signal from a “non-compliant” browser like IE 10. But another working group member argues that that approach is flawed. Tamir Israel, of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, [URL="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Jul/0158.html"]responded to Zaneis[/URL] with a list of objections:
* allowing for second guessing of facially valid signals leads to significant confusion on the part of users, many of whom will be using IE10 under the assumption that they are not being tracked;
* at least in some, if not all, jurisdictions servers open themselves up to significant potential liability if they ignore such signals, even if the browser sending them is non-compliant;
* it is essentially browser sniffing, which sets a bad precedent the impact of which far exceeds IE10 implications. It will allow anyone at any point of the exchange to basically ignore any signal they don't like based on purely subjective factors;
With its decision, Microsoft is consciously staking out a pro-privacy position for IE 10 and throwing down a gauntlet to the Tracking Protection Working Group, which thought it had hammered out an uneasy consensus between privacy groups and advertisers.
The working group is scheduled to meet tomorrow. Although today’s announcement by Microsoft[URL="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Aug/0013.html"]isn’t on the agenda[/URL], I’m betting that it will be a topic of still more vigorous discussion.
[/quote]
First the improvements with WIN8, and now improvements to IE10?
Wow, in the next 5 years IE may become viable.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;37160054]First the improvements with WIN8, and now improvements to IE10?
Wow, in the next 5 years IE may become viable.[/QUOTE]
IE is already very viable browser now.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;37160054]First the improvements with WIN8, and now improvements to IE10?Wow, in the next 5 years IE may become viable.[/QUOTE] Just a FYI here, IE9 and 10 pass acid3 with a 100/100 and support HTML5 probably better than chrome or firefox
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37160089]Just a FYI here, IE9 and 10 pass acid3 with a 100/100 and support HTML5 probably better than chrome or firefox[/QUOTE]
Because we all know how many sites use the new HTML5 features.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37160089]Just a FYI here, IE9 and 10 pass acid3 with a 100/100 and support HTML5 probably better than chrome or firefox[/QUOTE]
Everything's very good with regards to Web standards, among the big names. Now it's just UIs, and there is no reason to criticise one browser over another for personal preference, whereas once upon a time (and indeed still today) I had a very good reason to yell at you for using IE6.
The browser wars are obsolete.
[editline]9th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37160089]Just a FYI here, IE9 and 10 pass acid3 with a 100/100 and support HTML5 probably better than chrome or firefox[/QUOTE]
Actually, a minor correction. IE does not pass the Acid3 test. It gets 100/100 (a significant accomplishment) but the test conditions state:
[quote]To pass the test, a browser must use its default settings, the animation has to be smooth, the score has to end on 100/100, and the final page has to look exactly, pixel for pixel, like this reference rendering.[/quote]
And there [I]is[/I] a small difference from the reference rendering, which is that there is no shadow on the "Acid3" text. It fails.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37160200]Everything's very good with regards to Web standards, among the big names. Now it's just UIs, and there is no reason to criticise one browser over another for personal preference, whereas once upon a time (and indeed still today) I had a very good reason to yell at you for using IE6.
The browser wars are obsolete.
[editline]9th August 2012[/editline]
Actually, a minor correction. IE does not pass the Acid3 test. It gets 100/100 (a significant accomplishment) but the test conditions state:
And there [I]is[/I] a small difference, which is that there is no shadow on the "Acid3" text. It fails.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but at least on Windows, Safari is rather bad.
As to IE, it's not nearly as bad as it used to be, but it still has it flaws (such as the lack of good extensions, at least from what I've seen).
Anyway, good for Microsoft, the average user isn't going to know such a setting exists, let alone where to find it. Someone has to look out for the users interests.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37160200]Everything's very good with regards to Web standards, among the big names. Now it's just UIs, and there is no reason to criticise one browser over another for personal preference, whereas once upon a time (and indeed still today) I had a very good reason to yell at you for using IE6.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't IE also have a history of security issues? Or is that just inflated because of the Freetards yelling "FUCK MICRO$OFT" all the time?
Okay, Safari has a poor user interface. If I see a person using Safari, I can be reasonably certain that they're not breaking a tremendous number of websites by doing so (unless those websites are trying to use css3 image-rendering - damn you, Webkit!).
So my argument for them to switch browsers is as petty as efficiency on the personal level, there is no moral crusade.
I'm proud of Microsoft on this issue, though their Win8 choices puzzle me.
[QUOTE=lavacano;37160322]Doesn't IE also have a history of security issues? Or is that just inflated because of the Freetards yelling "FUCK MICRO$OFT" all the time?[/QUOTE]
I'm no expert on this.
I do know that by virtue of being not open source (compounded by Microsoft's update schedule), IE has been victim of a number of security holes in the past that have taken a long time to be repaired.
[QUOTE=Novangel;37160343]I'm proud of Microsoft on this issue, though their Win8 choices puzzle me.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-your-comments-on-the-start-screen.aspx[/url]
Not just that, the whole of 8.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37160089]Just a FYI here, IE9 and 10 pass acid3 with a 100/100 and support HTML5 probably better than chrome or firefox[/QUOTE]
People also forget its the [I]only[/I] fully hardware accelerated browser on the market.
FF, Safari, Chrome and Opera all still rely on software rendering with hardware acceleration being an optional tag on.
You can switch on hardware acceleration on chrome but tbh IE has the best I've seen
Now all IE needs to be truly in the crowd with Firefox and Chrome is better addons. Most the "addons" for IE are just search related.
I think it's good that MS is defaulting this to on, but I fear all it will do is cause advertisers to start ignoring it (That's why it defaults to off in other browsers, so if it's on it's because the user explicitly enabled it)
[QUOTE=eddy-tt-;37160424]People also forget its the [I]only[/I] fully hardware accelerated browser on the market.
FF, Safari, Chrome and Opera all still rely on software rendering with hardware acceleration being an optional tag on.[/QUOTE]
Firefox defaults to being hardware accelerated if the hardware can handle it, pretty sure Chrome is the same.
[QUOTE=Panda X;37160655]Now all IE needs to be truly in the crowd with Firefox and Chrome is better addons. Most the "addons" for IE are just search related.[/QUOTE] if adblock plus, screenshot web taker and some sort of IE sync between computers was introduced I would more than likely switch
I never use any browser addons. Not even Adblock Plus.
Hell I'm so anti-privacy I might as well disable Do Not Track settings.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37160860]if adblock plus, screenshot web taker and some sort of IE sync between computers was introduced I would more than likely switch[/QUOTE]
Spell check.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;37161087]Spell check.[/QUOTE]
there's nothing wrong with his spelling
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;37160089]Just a FYI here, IE9 and 10 pass acid3 with a 100/100 and support HTML5 probably better than chrome or firefox[/QUOTE]
For the most up-to-date HTML5 feature checking, you should be testing with [URL="http://html5test.com"]html5test.com[/URL]
[URL]http://html5test.com/compare/browser/chrome21/ff14/ie10.html[/URL]
Chrome is by far the best. Also, as of right now, IE has no plans to implement WebGL.
[QUOTE=lavacano;37161101]there's nothing wrong with his spelling[/QUOTE]
I was referring to how IE still has no default spell check, nor any well-known spell-check add-ons.
[editline]9th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=samm5506;37161204]For the most up-to-date HTML5 feature checking, you should be testing with [URL="http://html5test.com"]html5test.com[/URL]
[URL]http://html5test.com/compare/browser/chrome21/ff14/ie10.html[/URL]
Chrome is by far the best. Also, as of right now, IE has no plans to implement WebGL.[/QUOTE]
Damn, IE9 scored horrible on that.
And here comes all the IE fans,
I mean come on. We all use chrome
rrright?
[editline].[/editline]
No but I respect 9, I heard it was really good, saw it, used it, and it was pretty nice.
But I still prefer chrome.
Us Firefox users are a dying breed, it seems.
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;37161308]And here comes all the IE fans,
I mean come on. We all use chrome
rrright?
[editline].[/editline]
No but I respect 9, I heard it was really good, saw it, used it, and it was pretty nice.
But I still prefer chrome.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I've had way more issues with chrome than I've ever had with IE... since starting using chrome I've noticed:
my bookmarks when deleted would fuck up the list, and I'd have to re-open the list to fix it
embedded flash player will occasionally fuck up and draw improperly, like youtube windows
bookmarks don't sort by name so I had to get an addon to do that
it's crashed more than any browser I've ever used
it massive clogs up my task manager
and a few more things that are way more minor, like it really annoys me that when I click the top of the window instead of creating a new tab it changes the window resolution
[QUOTE=Elspin;37161452]my bookmarks when deleted would fuck up the list, and I'd have to re-open the list to fix it[/quote]
I'm not sure I understand this one.
[quote]embedded flash player will occasionally fuck up and draw improperly, like youtube windows[/quote]
Flash Player in general is shit, I for one will be among the first to completely abandon it once HTML5 finally takes hold
[quote]bookmarks don't sort by name so I had to get an addon to do that[/quote]
Fair.
[quote]it's crashed more than any browser I've ever used[/quote]
Fair-ish, but I'd like to say that at least when it crashes it's only the one tab. Also, I blame Flash Player mostly.
[quote]it massive clogs up my task manager[/quote]
See first statement of previous counterpoint.
[quote]it really annoys me that when I click the top of the window instead of creating a new tab it changes the window resolution[/QUOTE]
uhh? Either you're doing something unusual or you broke something somehow. Or I'm just really bad at interpreting this one. One of the three.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37160200]The browser wars are obsolete.[/QUOTE]
Um, I'm pretty sure each of the browsers are still going to compete over which one is faster.
Chrome used to be the undisputed fastest browser but Safari 6 is noticeably faster than Chrome, and I'm sure Google is going to release a version of Chrome that's even faster in the near future. The battle over standards may be over, for now anyways, but the browser wars will never be over.
The standards "war" isn't over, if anything browsers like IE and Chrome are starting it up again.
[QUOTE=DamagePoint;37162943]
Chrome used to be the undisputed fastest browser[/QUOTE]
When was this? Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.