IE9 Tracking Protection Lists

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/Default.html


I'm on linux

 

What's your point?

 

He is on linux and misses IE9 tracking lists

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1845570

 

I say who cares... Why use IE anyway? Besides use firefox disable cookies by default and use Cookie monster: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-monster/ to allow cookies individually for websites. Which is way better than any "Tracking Protection List". For me Ill take Cookie monster + Noscript anyday.

 

I use NoScript, adblock plus, and better privacy. Do you think there would be any benefit to adding cookie monster?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.