Reviews:
 ·AT&T Southwest
2 edits | Do not track in IE10 Interesting comment by the author of the HTTP standard, Roy Fielding, about Microsoft, IE10 and "Do Not Track":
quote:
Microsoft deliberately violates the standard. They made a big deal about announcing that very fact. Microsoft are members of the Tracking Protection working group and are fully informed of these facts. They are fully capable of requesting a change to the standard, but have chosen not to do so. The decision to set DNT by default in IE10 has nothing to do with the user's privacy. Microsoft knows full well that the false signal will be ignored, and thus prevent their own users from having an effective option for DNT even if their user's want one. You can figure out why they want that. If you have a problem with it, choose a better browser.
|
|
 Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | No surprise at all!!!
They were DEAD SET AGAINST HELPING THE USERS IN IE8!! (They released it with watered down privacy settings)
»www.wired.com/business/2010/08/i···-privacy
Then all of a sudden in IE9 they are ALL FOR THE END USER??
A bunch of BS!! |
|
 MSengPremium,Ex-Mod 2001-08
join:2000-07-13
Ork
kudos:6 | reply to howardfine
Re: Do not track in IE10 Interesting -- and here's another comment from that thread:
karlcow commented on a381ff3
quote:
"The choices of IE10 are irrelevant here in this discussion. This is about Apache doing user agent sniffing, which doesn't
1.Make the specification better or respect the spec.
2.Doesn't solve any issues for the users.
The users are taking into hostage in a political game between Roy Fielding (Apache, DNT spec editor) and Microsoft. This is not reasonable and will not help anything.
--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
| Dr Fielding also said:
quote:
Apache has a history of stepping in when vendors abuse HTTP. That is why HTTP survived the browser wars, and why the Web will continue to survive past the MS-GOOG war. I can assure you that GitHub would not exist now if Apache had not defended the Web's open standards over the past 17 years.
|
|
MSengPremium,Ex-Mod 2001-08
join:2000-07-13
Ork
kudos:6 | And others responded: quote:
»www.w3.org/TR/tracking-dnt/#determining
We do not specify how that preference is enabled: each implementation is responsible for determining the user experience by which this preference is enabled.
For example, a user might select a check-box in their user agent's configuration, install a plug-in or extension that is specifically designed to add a tracking preference expression, or make a choice for privacy that then implicitly includes a tracking preference (e.g., “Privacy settings: high”). Likewise, a user might install or configure a proxy to add the expression to their own outgoing requests. For each of these cases, we say that a tracking preference is enabled.
So just to summarise this commit: the "Express Settings" for Windows 8 include setting "Privacy settings: high", which in no way violates the W3C specification, but offends Dr Fielding.
quote:
There's just so many things wrong with this commit:
1.Why is Apache forcing vendors to interpret standards their way and punishing vendors who don't comply?
2.How is the DNT option not clearly marked?
3.You don't find it just a little wrong that users are going to think this is turned on, yet you guys are just turning it off? Why are you punishing users too?
This so messed up I wrote this.
quote:
The DNT spec depends heavily on being honored by ad agencies. If they don't, the eight bytes in "DNT: 1" have no effect.
As it turns out, those ad agencies have been vocal about their position on MSIE's announcement:
»lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/pub···153.html
Ignoring a broken UA does not penalize privacy by design -- it
makes it possible for industry to honor the real preferences of
users with non-broken UAs. Because that's the choice: ignore the
broken UA or ignore all of the UAs.
»lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/pub···081.html
Speaking only for myself, IE10 is still DNT On by Default
Individual companies can speak for themselves, but Shane's take on it is the general industry viewpoint.
»lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/pub···111.html
If the site does not believe the DNT:1 signal is valid, then why would anyone in the supply chain be expected to honor the invalid signal?
»lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/pub···168.html
--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer. |
|
|
|
| Um, you do realize the links used in that we're authored by Dr Fielding? It's funny reading people questioning the use of http against the author of http. |
|
MSengPremium,Ex-Mod 2001-08
join:2000-07-13
Ork
kudos:6 | I'm well aware of what others said in that thread. Read it pretty thoroughly.
--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer. |
|
 FreddyPremium
join:2005-05-17
Arlington, VA | reply to howardfine
For those readers not following this issue, here is a simple clarification:
By default, Internet Explorer 10 will have Do Not Track turned ON (meaning "no tracking").
Users can turn it off (meaning "tracking permitted").
The standards specify that tracking should be allowed. Microsoft's approach upsets advertisers and some other people.
For those wanting to know more, see the following link:
»www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2408181,00.asp
Freddy |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
1 edit | reply to howardfine
said by »www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/10···ndows_8/ :
Also, somewhat controversially, Fielding has updated the code of millions of servers to not accept the privacy settings of the browser in Windows 8 silently, without apparently notifying the world or seeking its approval.
So, to summarize:
Fielding believes that Microsoft's default-do-not-track policy is a cynical ploy to get web servers to ignore the DNT setting, and he has responded by making web servers ignore the DNT setting.
Did I understand that correctly?
I expect the many web sites that run on Apache, and their advertisers, will thank Fielding for delivering all IE10 users as innocent hostages. |
|
| reply to howardfine
quote:
The standard only began to stipulate that browsers shouldn't include a default header setting with the draft released on 7 September. The previous draft released in March 2011 didn't conclusively determine this aspect. However, the standard is a long way from being approved and is currently an "editor's draft".
»www.h-online.com/open/news/item/···392.html
--
Gladiator Security Forum: www.gladiator-antivirus.com/
|
|
 DustynPremium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:10 | reply to howardfine
So when can we expect IE10 for Windows 7? |
|
Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
| said by Dustyn:So when can we expect IE10 for Windows 7?
I'd like to know this too. I am assuming they are holding it back until Windows 8 hits the street. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Dustyn
said by Dustyn:So when can we expect IE10 for Windows 7?
Who cares? No one should be using IE anyway.
(My other life is producing stage plays in Chicago with my actor son so I'm pretty much unavailable for another week) |
|
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| reply to howardfine
said by howardfine:Interesting comment by the author of the HTTP standard, Roy Fielding, about Microsoft, IE10 and "Do Not Track":
quote:
Microsoft deliberately violates the standard. They made a big deal about announcing that very fact. Microsoft are members of the Tracking Protection working group and are fully informed of these facts. They are fully capable of requesting a change to the standard, but have chosen not to do so. The decision to set DNT by default in IE10 has nothing to do with the user's privacy. Microsoft knows full well that the false signal will be ignored, and thus prevent their own users from having an effective option for DNT even if their user's want one. You can figure out why they want that. If you have a problem with it, choose a better browser.
Weird... I just installed win8 (currently the only way to get IE10) and there was an actual choice point for do not track during the install - you know, an on/off switch the user looked at, and had to choose over.
The on/off switch was in the on state. The user had to accept the setting. I think that that means the user chose that setting.
of course for some the only solution is to switch browsers (lol)
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
DustynPremium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:10 | reply to howardfine
said by howardfine:said by Dustyn:So when can we expect IE10 for Windows 7?
Who cares? No one should be using IE anyway. (My other life is producing stage plays in Chicago with my actor son so I'm pretty much unavailable for another week) I do along with the vast majority of IE users.
When it comes out I'll be installing it along with millions of other users. I respect your choice not too.
Also...that's great... but... I don't think I'll need to get in touch with you, thanks! 
--
Remember that cool hidden "Graffiti Wall" here on BBR? After the name change I became the "owner", so to speak as it became: Dustyn's Wall »[Serious] RIP
|
|
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | I lied. Free moment before curtain call.
said by Dustyn:I do along with the vast majority of IE users. Yeah, I guess the vast majority of IE users do use IE.
quote:
When it comes out I'll be installing it along with millions of other users. I respect your choice not too.
As I've always said, browser choice is a personal thing because all browsers do a pretty good job, technically, so it boils down to personal preference as to how it looks and feels. However, IE is so abysmally inept, no web developer worth his salt touches it with a 10-foot pole and it deserves to die, but most Windows users have no knowledge of such technical things and it is we developers who have to deal with it. |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | Yeah, 'cos all us Windows users are too stupid to match the intellect of a *web developer*.
C'mon, guy: it's the job of any half-decent programmer to smooth out cross-system warts. No, no-one likes it, it's a pain in the arse, not fun to have to do, and it's always the other guy's fault (not my fault, my code is perfect). On the other hand, it comes with the territory, so suck it up. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
2 edits | Note I said "most".
For example, ArsTechnica is an online magazine that caters to technically adept people. Every month it publishes its browser visits and ranks them. IE users are only about 10% of its visitors but that's true of every web developer or technical site I visit. |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to dave
said by dave:C'mon, guy: it's the job of any half-decent programmer to smooth out cross-system warts.
That doesn't make IE any better of a browser. IE requires more effort to do the things any other browser can do and sometimes considerably more effort if it can be done at all. |
|
JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| reply to howardfine
said by howardfine:but that's true of every web developer or technical site I visit.
Yep... so IE isn't for you. We get that, based on the endless posts. It's still not a bad browser. It's better than Safari, which you somehow seem to accept as a browser, or at least you are willing to ignore.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
