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:
    4,152
    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:
    2,301
    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:
    2,301
    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. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,853
    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. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,853
    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.