Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Internet Explorer Microsoft Privacy Software The Internet Your Rights Online IT

IE10 Will Have 'Do Not Track' On By Default 181

Posted by Soulskill
from the stop-or-i'll-say-stop-again dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IE10 Will Have 'Do Not Track' On By Default

Comments Filter:
  • OK but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by squiggleslash (241428) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:20PM (#40181183) Homepage Journal

    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... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Moheeheeko (1682914) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:24PM (#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... (Score:5, Informative)

        by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:35PM (#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.

        • by lbk70 (1229872)
          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.
        • by fluffy99 (870997)

          The federal DNC list has quite a few exceptions that my local state DNC list did not have, such as charities and political groups. (Go figure Congress would exempt themselves, eh?) Since our state has dropped their DNC program in favor of the federal list, I'm getting a lot of calls again. Plus the feds are pretty lax about enforcing complaints. Our state AG dept was actually pretty good about it and would fine organizations if they got complaints.

      • by Pope (17780) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:43PM (#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?

        • by idontgno (624372)

          See? You're doing it wrong.

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

      • by a90Tj2P7 (1533853)
        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: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Sloppy (14984)

        Ask my family on how that one worked out.

        I tried but they wouldn't answer the phone.

      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        >>>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.

      • by asylumx (881307)

        Ask my family on how that one worked out.

        I would, but I'm not allowed to call them.

    • by perpenso (1613749) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:38PM (#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.

      • 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.

        • by perpenso (1613749)

          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.

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

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

    • by ragefan (267937)

      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.

    • by recoiledsnake (879048) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:53PM (#40181609)

      They hacked Safari's privacy measures previously.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/google-tricked-apples-saf_n_1284551.html [huffingtonpost.com]

      They also ignored IE's p3p setting.

      http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2012/02/20/google-bypassing-user-privacy-settings.aspx [msdn.com]

      Expect Google fanboys/employees to slag MS for protecting the users' privacy in the comments.

    • by pavon (30274) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:05PM (#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.

      • by pavon (30274)

        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

    • by Joce640k (829181)

      Nice one, Microsoft. Now can we have email encryption on by default, too...?

    • by Sfing_ter (99478)

      yes, ignored by Microsoft first and foremost, because as a general rule, when you have their operating system installed they are tracking you. It would be better if they automatically had DO NOT FUCK MY COMPUTER BECAUSE I ACCIDENTALLY OPENED THIS BROWSER turned on by default, that would be awesome...

    • My thoughts exactly. Voluntary standards like the DNT works when you know a minority of you users will turn it on. Kinda like Ad-block. The reason why there isn't an all out war on Ad-Block is because only a small percentage of people use it, so it is better to allow ad-block and not piss off a minority, who can be vocal and make a big deal out of it, causing a drop beyond just he ad-block users. However if the majority is using Ad-Block then you have sucked the companies revenue and you can just write o

    • ...if DNT is unenforceable, wouldn't "DNT by default" give certain entities an excuse to ignore the DNT flag by default?

      Yes, but a certain competitor has a tendency to take the high road in these matters (or at least appear to do so). If Google honors DNT, then they lose out on data that their core business depends on. If they don't honor DNT, then +1 propaganda point for Microsoft.

  • by Sloppy (14984) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:21PM (#40181189) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • 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.
  • by RobinH (124750) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:23PM (#40181231) Homepage
    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.
    • by perpenso (1613749)

      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.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        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.

        • 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?

        • Well, the other thing is that Google or whatever can use the power of advertising to convince people with DNT turned on to allow them to opt in.

          Lest you think this is impossible, remember that we're talking about multiple circles of hell here.

          The outer level? Totally free content, no ads. (Outer level is, in fact, not hell at all)

          Inside level: Free content, with a few ads that are actually interesting.

          Inside that level: Free content, with ads that are not remotely interesting. BROUGHT TO YOU BY VAG

    • by ShanghaiBill (739463) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:45PM (#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.

      • by Frankie70 (803801) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:30PM (#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.

      • Yes, this is an attack on Google, and has little to do with being "pro-consumer".

        I keep seeing this presented as an attack on Google, but it seems to me that it would help Google more than it would hurt it. Consider this: If you're logged into a Google service they can (and will) still track you. With Google's new privacy policy it doesn't matter which service you're logged in to. So if you use Google Docs, Gmail, YouTube, etc. and don't log out every time you do a Google search you'll be getting tracked re

    • by Sarten-X (1102295)

      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.

    • 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

    • by KPU (118762)

      And companies that engage in this form of tracking deserve to lose revenue.

  • by sideslash (1865434) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:23PM (#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.
    • Flash support is kinda funny - the Metro version of IE uses a whitelist, but the desktop one seems to allow it to run everywhere. Go figure.

      • Actually that is expected, because the desktop IE on Windows 8 can run all the same plugins as previous IE versions can. Metro IE can't run (or even install) any plugins, because it is all about sandboxing apps and conserving battery life, just like an iPad, except that they threw this embedded Flash engine in there for the whitelist sites.
        • Actually that is expected, because the desktop IE on Windows 8 can run all the same plugins as previous IE versions can.

          Not on ARM, though.

  • by s.petry (762400) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:27PM (#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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:37PM (#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.

    • >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.

    • by 0ld_d0g (923931)

      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?

    • by mystikkman (1487801) on Friday June 01, 2012 @01:35PM (#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???

  • The Real Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by clarkn0va (807617) <apt.get@gm a i l . c om> on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:29PM (#40181303) Homepage

    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.

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      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!

    • >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.

  • by mtrachtenberg (67780) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:40PM (#40181433) Homepage

    Take that, Google.

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

    • by sdnoob (917382)

      clearly, DNT defaulting to on is a shot at google's advertising and analytical products.. but DNT as a whole is just a noble endeavor that simply will not work.. just like you can't stop spammers, slamming and cramming on your phone bill, phishing, and other scams/crooks.

  • 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.
  • 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 f
    • This is a potential disaster in my eyes. We're talking about destroying the commercial web here.

      Actually, we're talking about destroying DNT. The whole point of DNT is that its opt-in for users. Honoring the DNT flag is voluntary, and no one is going to honor it if major browser vendors reverse the design to make it opt-out.

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      available of money for advertising when dnt is on: xxx.
      available of money for advertising in a world without dnt: xxx.

      and you don't need to track where the user was last week to show them adverts on cheap sneakers when they're searching for nike today.

      care to point to any of those decent industry programs?

      • Advertisers move money to what's effective. If online advertising becomes less effective, they remove money from the ecosystem.

        Your search example demonstrates a lack of industry knowledge. That's not the case that DNT impacts. Rather, it's knowing the user visited Nike.com in the last 30 days but didn't buy anything, so maybe you should show them a Nike ad if you get a chance. It's called retargeting or remarketing and it works a lot better than just spamming ads at everybody. It's also typically divo

  • by alen (225700) on Friday June 01, 2012 @12:52PM (#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

  • Maybe IE10 could also automatically add you to the Do Not Kill list [go.com]. Microsoft can use all the incentives it can find to coax people into using IE.

  • 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,...

    • by Ksevio (865461)

      I don't think Lynx sends the Do Not Track header when it requests a web page.

      It's not really the tracking information being stored locally that's the problem, it's the server-side stuff across ad networks linked by IPs, user accounts, browsers, and anything else that can be used to identify a user.

  • 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 disappoi

    • I agree to a point. It's not that the gesture is empty, but it's impossible to implement correctly because it's unintelligible, vague, and opens web hosts up to possible privacy suits because "Do Not Track" is so ill defined.

      Ignoring all the costly updates to many custom websites back-ends that I've developed for others, including non-profit groups: What does this mean for my own sites? I have a few personal websites, and one for an indie game that a few other folks and I are working on in our spare t

  • Along with Do Not Install any OS but WinOS, aka UEFI, which is starting to sound more and more like UFIA.
  • "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

  • by hduff (570443)

    If only they would have the "Do Not Exploit With Malware" option turned on.

    • by fluffy99 (870997)

      If only they would have the "Do Not Exploit With Malware" option turned on.

      The browser or OS just needs to drop the packets with the evil bit set.

One small step for man, one giant stumble for mankind.

Working...