Playing Around With Tracking Protection In IE9

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

Could this be the nuclear option against Google?

[Dr. Spork]

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

Re:Who cares?

[DeathFromSomewhere]

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

Re:Who cares?

[ThatsMyNick]

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

Chestnuts

[symbolset]

Derived from an old chestnut. [craphound.com]

Your post advocates a

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

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

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

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

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

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

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

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

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

No ads benefits folks you may not like

[Invisible Now]

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