IE9 Tracking Protection Lists

Discussion in 'privacy technology' started by Konata Izumi, Mar 7, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Konata Izumi

    Konata Izumi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2008
    Posts:
    1,544
  2. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,243
    What's your point?
     
  3. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    He is on linux and misses IE9 tracking lists :p
     
  4. trismegistos

    trismegistos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Posts:
    365
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1845570
     
  5. markedmanner

    markedmanner Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Posts:
    134
  6. caspian

    caspian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Posts:
    2,352
    Location:
    Oz
    I use NoScript, adblock plus, and better privacy. Do you think there would be any benefit to adding cookie monster?
     
  7. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    It's my opinion that no, you don't need it with all that. If you block just the 3rd party cookies in FF, allow only scripts needed to make a website fully functional, and use Better Privacy for your Flash cookies, you've pretty much killed off tracking period. I used to manually allow cookies one by one, when I didn't know any better. I'd rather be tracked than deal with that again, but that was my problem and not on-topic. Again though, no, imho you don't need cookie monster too.
     
  8. caspian

    caspian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Posts:
    2,352
    Location:
    Oz
    Thanks for that. Yes I also have third party cookies disabled in Firefox. And if I had to allow cookies one by one I would go crazy. It would ruin my experience.
     
  9. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Question 1: Have you noticed that some of the lists include permissions to access certain third-parties?

    I'm not just talking about having multiple TPLs and whitelists taking precedence; I'm talking about having just one TPL. I haven't checked them all, but sometime ago when going through one of them (don't remember which one), I saw it also had some permissions.

    Question 2: That said, is that, somehow, a way to allow third-party cookies, if IE privacy settings are blocking them?

    I just don't understand why an explicit permission would be required in TPLs. If a TPL is not blocking a third-party, then it's allowed already. So, I believe it has something to do with users having IE set to block third-party cookies.

    Are those TPLs overriding third-party cookies blocking, allowing them o_O
     
  10. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,053
    Not sure what you're asking, but when it comes to ad blocking a lot of the time an entire domain will be blocked, then later it will be found that a site requires a specific script from that domain, so a whitelist entry will be made (allow). For example a deny rule is added for website.com then later it is found that certain images on the bbc website don't load because they require a script from website.com/scripts/coolscript.js in which case an allow rule is created for website.com/scripts but the deny rule is still there blocking everything else.

    Also this is why HOSTS files cannot be as accurate as ABP/TPL's, because outright blocking all ad sites will simply break functionality on many sites.
     
  11. m00nbl00d

    m00nbl00d Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Posts:
    6,623
    Yes, I'm aware of that. I just found which list I was talking about. It's fanboy's.

    -https://secure.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/ie/fanboy-tracking.tpl

    Example:

    +d track.dhl.co.uk

    Why would such entry be needed?

    If I understand the concept of TPL, if there's a -d something_else entry, then access to that third-party is blocked. If there's none, then it will be granted. Correct? If so, why would such entry be needed?
     
  12. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,053
    There's no real way to know that other than dig up the forums and see if a false positive was maybe reported because of it, must have a reason for being there.
     
  13. :thumb:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.