IE 10 default "Do Not Track" feature under attack by advertisers in crappy video

A few weeks ago, Microsoft announced that Internet Explorer 10 in the Windows 8 Release Preview would have "Do Not Track" enabled by default. While Microsoft said that the feature can be disabled by IE 10 users if they wish to, the online advertising industry had an adverse reaction to this move. The Digital Advertising Alliance said that Microsoft's decision may "reduce the availability and diversity of the Internet products and services that millions of American consumers currently enjoy at no charge."

Now LUMA Partners, an investment bank, has produced a YouTube video that also slams the "Do Not Track" feature in IE 10. The video shows a "map" of the digital advertising industry being eaten up, Pac-Man style, by the IE logo. The video claims the online ad industry should fight this move, claiming that Microsoft's decision could cost thousands of US jobs. It even compares the fight against "Do Not Track" to SOPA.

The video, which most likely had a production budget of $14.00, is amateur at best. The quality of the video makes it hard to take the claims seriously and it does little to draw sympathy for the group. 

LUMA Partners, under the guidance of its founder and CEO Terence Kawaja, have a history of making these kinds of videos. However, we do think that comparing the digital ad agency's issues with "Do Not Track" with SOPA is perhaps stretching things a bit.

Via: Business Insider
Source: YouTube

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Team Fortress 2 receives mysterious new updates; we investigate

Next Story

Apple fined $2.29 million in Australia over iPad 4G claims

37 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Waits for all browsers to implement this so i can lol.

But seriously, i have no issue with ads, ads targeted at the content i have in front of me is fine. However the industry got greedy and started tracking everything i do which 90% of the time ends up with me getting ads that i have no interest in because i spend most of my time researching for other people.

This is going to sound controversial, but Microsoft were wrong to enable DNT by default; although not because of the reasons the advertising companies give.

DNT was designed to be an "opt-in" function. If we're going to enable it by default, we might as well just introduce legislation so that companies disable tracking by default instead. Otherwise, we're wasting bytes with each HTTP page request.

http://w3cmemes.tumblr.com/pos...enguin-might-be-missing-the

Le fu**?
I mean really... That's it?

42 seconds of cheesy wild claims?

They couldn't even stretch their "arguments" to the length of one minute... Hilarious!

GS:mac

Glassed Silver said,
Le fu**?
I mean really... That's it?

42 seconds of cheesy wild claims?

They couldn't even stretch their "arguments" to the length of one minute... Hilarious!

GS:mac

I know, they have no basis for their arguments. It's like a burglar asking people to leave their door unlocked by default to make their job easier.

E:trs80

Crappy advertisement but the fact is that web developers will not be able to subsidise the cost of their site with ads alone because of this, and a lot of websites, particularly smaller ones, will just close because they can't afford the hosting.

I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing some scripts added to websites which detect if Do not Track is enabled and will say "To use this website, you must enable Tracking in your browser" in the same way as websites who detect Adblock.

Simon- said,
Crappy advertisement but the fact is that web developers will not be able to subsidise the cost of their site with ads alone because of this, and a lot of websites, particularly smaller ones, will just close because they can't afford the hosting.

Nonsense. Do Not Track doesn't prevent advertising, it simply prevents unwarranted invasions of privacy by advertisers. Websites can continue to use advertising as a source of revenue with or without DNT.

jakem1 said,

Nonsense. Do Not Track doesn't prevent advertising, it simply prevents unwarranted invasions of privacy by advertisers. Websites can continue to use advertising as a source of revenue with or without DNT.


But are advertisers willing to pay as much knowing that the ads will not be targeted. The value of the ads are diminished.

+1.
I do not know about you people, but this post made me laugh. From the title to how it was written + the killer video that was posted. It looked like it was one of those informertials that are presented on a Cyber Café screen saver.

So, now that the user's security and privacy is finally put in first place, the advertising industry is complaining? This is getting ridiculous. Besides, people can always choose to turn it back on.
In any case, a users privacy should always be the first concern in the security world. There is someone who will complain.
Damn if you do, damned if you don't! :-)

marksuth said,
You do realise this is a parody video right? It's not a real advert. Which would explain the poor quality.

Can't expect authors to research before posting.

They want to trick people into thinking that internet advertising must spy on the user in order to be viable (despite no other form of advertising doing so).

I'm reading about Xbox games? Show me ads for Halo 4. Maybe spying on me will determine my interest in Halo 4, or maybe it will misinterpret my activity and show me ads that are actually less relevant to my interests.

Arkose said,
They want to trick people into thinking that internet advertising must spy on the user in order to be viable (despite no other form of advertising doing so).

I'm reading about Xbox games? Show me ads for Halo 4. Maybe spying on me will determine my interest in Halo 4, or maybe it will misinterpret my activity and show me ads that are actually less relevant to my interests.

I agree with your first point, but they're not "spying". An anonymous cookie is placed on your computer that will effectively tell another website you visit in the future that you looked at videogames, so you see a relevant ad. No user data is collected or stored, at least, that's how it works in Europe.

In addition to the "do not track" enhancement, the feature that needs to be added is the ability to prevent "super cookies" from installing on your computer or an easy method to delete "super cookies" after they have secretly installed themselves.

SpyCatcher said,
In addition to the "do not track" enhancement, the feature that needs to be added is the ability to prevent "super cookies" from installing on your computer or an easy method to delete "super cookies" after they have secretly installed themselves.

The thing is super cookie should not even be legal.

lovely title

innovative ?? really? what rock they sleeping under.
yeah it will cost billions of money in air! stop fooling everyone in an attempt to put them against Microsoft. I strongly support Microsoft with the do not track being on by default. as it supports our Dutch law which also 'protects' us dutch e-citizens from being tracked by 3rd parties without our prior permission... opt-in is in this case allot better then opt-out.

internet worked fine advertising wise before we started tracking and aggregating everything each user does... sure you wont have directed ads as good, but sheesh, its not going to kill advertisers

Advertisers need to appreciate that adding banners and such like to sites is all well and good if they target the ads to the content, but it starts getting creepy when advertisers are allowed to display ads based on your overall browsing behavior!