ie8 fix
madison

Good Microsoft versus Bad Microsoft on privacy

By | August 2, 2010, 2:09pm PDT

Summary: More than two years ago, two rival divisions within Microsoft slugged it out over an innovative feature in IE8. The IE development team, representing Good Microsoft, had written an awesome privacy protection platform. The online advertising division, representing Bad Microsoft, objected. Guess who won?

It’s time for another round of Good Microsoft, Bad Microsoft. I first wrote about this phenomenon back in April 2008:

On paper and in theory, Microsoft is a single corporation, with something like 80,000 employees worldwide. In the real world, it’s actually a collection of dozens, maybe even hundreds, of small companies that appear to act without a lot of central supervision.

That is the only possible explanation for how the same company could do something totally amazing on the same day that it makes headlines with a ridiculously boneheaded move.

Ironically, today’s example involves a decision that was made around the same time I wrote that post, while Internet Explorer 8 was under development. In a well-researched story today, the Wall Street Journal reported that Microsoft’s advertising division had beaten the Internet Explorer team in an internal battle over the deployment of a genuinely innovative privacy feature in IE8, called In-Private Filtering:

In early 2008, Microsoft Corp.’s product planners for the Internet Explorer 8.0 browser intended to give users a simple, effective way to avoid being tracked online. They wanted to design the software to automatically thwart common tracking tools, unless a user deliberately switched to settings affording less privacy.

That triggered heated debate inside Microsoft. As the leading maker of Web browsers, the gateway software to the Internet, Microsoft must balance conflicting interests: helping people surf the Web with its browser to keep their mouse clicks private, and helping advertisers who want to see those clicks.

In the end, the product planners lost a key part of the debate. The winners: executives who argued that giving automatic privacy to consumers would make it tougher for Microsoft to profit from selling online ads. Microsoft built its browser so that users must deliberately turn on privacy settings every time they start up the software.

I remember this feature very well. During demos and interviews throughout the IE8 development process, I recall asking more than once why this amazingly useful feature was so hard to enable. The answers never made sense. A year later, when my co-authors and I were planning our coverage of Internet Explorer 8 for Windows 7 Inside Out, we spent a day or two dissecting its inner workings and agreed that this feature as implemented was nearly useless. (We made sure to document the registry tweak that turns it on, knowing that maybe one in 10,000 Windows users would go to the trouble of actually using it.)

[Update: Several commenters have confused this feature with In Private Browsing. They are not the same thing.]

The depressing part of this story, in my mind, is that the software development team was absolutely in touch with what Internet users want and need. Microsoft had a chance to show genuine leadership when it comes to Internet privacy. The team that wrote the software actually designed and built a feature that could have served as a model for the rest of the industry. That was Good Microsoft at work. But Bad Microsoft nullified all that work with a decision that was not only contrary to its customers’ best wishes but also guaranteed to result in a major hit to its reputation when it became public, as it inevitably did.

In this case, Bad Microsoft actually has a face and a name. According to the Journal, senior vice president Brian McAndrews was the one who complained and successfully lobbied to have the feature neutered. (He’s former chief executive of web-ad firm aQuantive, which became Microsoft Advertising after it was acquired in 2007.)

Mr. McAndrews has left the company, according to the Journal. Unfortunately, the decision he argued for is still in place. Microsoft owes several hundred million IE users an apology, and I’d love to see this feature fully enabled in IE9. But I won’t be holding my breath.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

61
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Good Microsoft versus Bad Microsoft on privacy
beijing2008 14th Sep
Thanks a lot for your sharing. Chanel New Bags
God, the list of Microsoft's stupidities is endless.

When you look at the add-ons for Firefox, there are plenty for security and privacy. When you go to www.ieaddons.com, on the other hand, "security" and "privacy" are NOT EVEN AVAILABLE CATEGORIES you can choose from.

The only public apology worth anything is to release IE9 with these privacy features enabled by default.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Good Microsoft versus Bad Microsoft on privacy
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 2nd Aug 2010
@JFDude - There's a HUGE difference between users having the choice to manually download a tool to do and the (then) dominant browser vendor preventing competitors from being able to do .

Whilst in this case, I completely agree that most users would have been well served, what do you think the courts would have said if MS was to have prevented Google's tracking capability? It would AT LEAST have been seen as anti-competitive.
0 Votes
+ -
Simple
klumper 2nd Aug 2010
@de-void
What do you think the courts would have said if MS was to have prevented Google's tracking capability?

That's a chance they should have taken. It would have amounted to a win-win situation in any case, presupposing it went there. And everyone likes to win.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
You miss the point
Ed Bott Updated - 3rd Aug 2010
@de-void The feature exists. The change that was made was to make it difficult for all but the most technical users to enable this feature. It doesn't have to be on by default, but the user should have the option to easily enable it.
0 Votes
+ -
@de-void

not if it blocked their own tracking tools too
0 Votes
+ -
@JFDude
That is because all Firefox security comes from add-ons. The add-ons all comes from different providers. You know, like the ones that phone home, great feature in a security product.
@mswift@...
Any proof these add-ons "phone home"?

Or are you just disgusted that Ed just crapped on IE8.
0 Votes
+ -
@JFDude Nah. the only public apology worth anything would be to release it as a patch in the next service pack series for all versions.
the only public apology worth anything would be to release it as a patch in the next service pack series for all versions.

@zclayton2
They'll never do that. In fact, there are those out there that wish IE8 had the ads permanently baked into the browser.

Obnoxious greed rules the day.
Thanks a lot for your sharing. Chanel New Bags
0 Votes
+ -
It's very clear
MSFTWorshipper 2nd Aug 2010
MSFT decisions get made by bean-counters and not by the engineers who seem to have common sense. It's a FUBAR situation with no resolution.
0 Votes
+ -
@MSFTWorshipper - It's been that way at Microsoft and many other companies for a long time. As long as a company is publicly traded with stockholders, profit will *always* take precedence over what's truly right for the customer because the stockholders will always demand their "due".

And no, I'm no longer a Microsoft stock holder, haven't been for a while because they've lost sight of what's right for the customer/user.
0 Votes
+ -
@PollyProteus But how odes it benefit them if I don't use their product at all. We have all but banned IE here (we only use it on the rare occasion that one of our clients has a site setup that only works on IE)
0 Votes
+ -
But that's true of ALL companies...
Wolfie2K3 3rd Aug 2010
@PollyProteus
Look at the iphone 4 debacle. It's cheaper to issue a free rubber baby buggy bumper than to do a total recall and fix the antenna problem once and for all. Apple isn't any different.

All companies pretty much will do the same sort of thing - whatever it takes to stay out of the red.
@MSFTWorshipper MSFT was, is, and always will be, a marketing company. Marketing (and its sister sales), will always win out over technology. MSFT is NOT a technology company. Only blind idiots think otherwise.
0 Votes
+ -
And it comes back to bite them in the a$$.
Lester Young 3rd Aug 2010
@MSFTWorshipper

Thinking back to the early decision to support obsolete DOS-Windows APIs in win32. It cost Microsoft dearly in development and support costs over a decade later.
0 Votes
+ -
Companies have to balance their customers' ...
P. Douglas Updated - 3rd Aug 2010
... as well as their own self-interests. I think it is awkward to have one part of a company undermine another. The feature sounds neat, but I don't think it is worth millions of dollars of lost revenue to MS. The way the feature as implemented is at best an annoyance to users. If the feature resulted in critical problems, that would be another story.
0 Votes
+ -
@P. Douglas And lost market share on the browser because security sucks isn't part of the lost revenue picture? (Written from my firefox browser.)
0 Votes
+ -
No impact there..
Wolfie2K3 3rd Aug 2010
@zclayton2
If the browser is free and the replacement is free - then how can it impact revenue...? They already have the money you paid for the OS. There is no financial loss beyond that. It may result in someone's wounded pride - but that's about as far as it goes.
0 Votes
+ -
No impact there?
LTV10 Updated - 3rd Aug 2010
@Wolfie2k3
If that were true, if there were no financial impact, then why was this feature disabled? Why would they fear the user having the option to turn it off?

Unless... wink
0 Votes
+ -
Good for you Ed
klumper 2nd Aug 2010
To call out the bad with the good. This is but one more example of why reporters must strive to be as impartial as possible, while being advocates for consumers (who after all, pay for all this largesse) in getting things right! That becomes the point at which they are ultimately taken seriously [see Paul Thurrott for more].

It's also what Microsoft - and their industry kin - are all too often NOT about. Mistakes are mistakes, just learn to fess up big boys! Your halos won't diminish, since they don't exist except in your fanciful imaginations.

RECENT HEADLINE TECH NEWS

- Microsoft nixes much needed browser privacy filter after weighing consumer interests over advertising revenue. Guess who WINS? Client base crows What's new?

- Apple pulls off Antennagate whopper, as they huff and puff their iPhone walls down. Jobs later caves after tail-chasing himself back to his senses. Some cite exhaustion, along with shortage of bumpers and mudguards.

- "Do No Evil" Google says "We're sorry" sad after being called to task for invading the privacy of unsuspecting parties via signal-pimping streetcars, possibly to include unsecured lawmakers' crypts. Ouch.

- "Do No Evil" Google crawls back on all fours to re-curry favor with Marxist China, after sticking their overly righteous (and ultimately hypocritical) foot in their mouth. Rumor has it Google's abandoned streetcar vans have been converted into Chinese scrap metal as part of the bargain. w00t

More to come ... rest assured. wink
0 Votes
+ -
We NEVER excuse bad behavior
HollywoodDog 3rd Aug 2010
@klumper ... by pointing to other bad behavior.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't think that was the point.
Lester Young 3rd Aug 2010
@HollywoodDog

We did, however, see Apple pointing the finger to deflect attention in the whole iPhone 4 debacle.
0 Votes
+ -
I do think that was the point
LTV10 3rd Aug 2010
@Lester Young

We did, however, see Lester Young pointing the finger to deflect attention in this whole In-Private Filtering debacle.
@klumper It's time to update your playbook. China hasn't been Marxist in quite a while.
0 Votes
+ -
Ironic isn't it?
Lester Young 3rd Aug 2010
@albill

Chinese capital is what saves American capitalism from American capitalists.
0 Votes
+ -
You mean the one-world playbook?
klumper 3rd Aug 2010
@albill
It's time to update your playbook. China hasn't been Marxist in quite a while.

It's the softer, new and improved variant of the Red Banner. The further the Reds move toward capitalism, the further we drift toward socialism. Oh irony of ironies.

"East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." Kipling had it all wrong. The twain is the progressing one-world order. The Feds and multinationals are seeing to that, with instrumental help from international bankers and our clueless national media (who bring new and improved meaning to Marxist-socialist snobbery).

@Lester Young
Ironic isn't it? Chinese capital is what saves American capitalism from American capitalists.

Beautiful. They can't seem to dish and fumble it away quick enough, can they? And yet their private vaults continue to overflow with annual appropriations that would payroll thousands upon thousands of "ordinary Joes." The only ones with job security these days are the security personnel they hire to guard their exclusive hilltop spreads, as seen from the unemployment lines below.

Oh the humanity (as another Zeppelin crashes)
0 Votes
+ -
`
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft is about making money and not about providing technological innovations to advance mankind.

Just perfect proof that intelligent consumers will avoid Microsoft products if they value their privacy and their estate.
0 Votes
+ -
@Isocrates Lets use Google Chrome so Google can spy on us.
0 Votes
+ -
@Isocrates - No, really? Microsoft is a business that tries to maximize profit? What's next, you tell me the sun rises in the east? Microsoft makes products and people buy them. If you're not happy with their products, there are other options. Not sure what their great sin is here.
typical: Software design by bean-counters, sales men, marketing dept and lawyers. Everyone except software developers.
0 Votes
+ -
Just Like Vista
MichP 3rd Aug 2010
They made it all pretty with lots of non-functional UI fluff, without caring that it needed powerful, more expensive hardware to be impressive. That goes against Bill Gates original vision of PC's in every home (not just the ones with plenty of disposable income).
@MichP

Love or hate Vista, it (accidentally I know) started a massive price revolution/plummet in computer hardware, including components once considered only a niche-specific requirement, such as decent vid cards.

* GPU speeds and OS integration has massively evolved since 2007
* Baselines for HDD size and speed/write speed have gone through the roof - SSD development has also flourished
* CPU/Multi-core CPU evolution has sky-rocketed
* Developments in RAM have exploded, especially as the uptake of x64 OS has bloomed (finally!)

Add to that the multitude of other components which have evolved at an exponential rate since Vista launched - many of which have benefited users of ALL OS FLAVOURS - and you have to wonder when you guys are going to learn how to play a different fiddle.
0 Votes
+ -
Saftey/InPrivate Browsing
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Different feature
Ed Bott 3rd Aug 2010
@Johnny Vegas In Private Browsing is NOT the same as In Private Filtering. The former is a mode that wipes out your history when you close the browser. The latter is a way to monitor third-party tracking sites and prevent them from aggregating information about your behavior. Next time you're doing regular browsing in IE8, press Ctrl+Shift+F to see this feature at work.
0 Votes
+ -
So where's your registery fix, Ed?
LTV10 Updated - 4th Aug 2010
You mention it up above. Do we have to buy your book to find out?



(Ooops, spoke too soon...) :P
Netscape was in a similar situation some years ago with Netscape 7.1 (I think that's the right version number). It inherited the pop-up blocker that had been enabled in the Mozilla browser (this was pre-Firefox, folks) but it shipped with a whitelist to allow several Netscape sites, such as netscape.com, to show popups.

And guess what the default home page was? Yep, netscape.com

Consequently, despite a pop-up blocker being one of the advertised features of the browser, by default, users would see pop-ups the first time they ran the browser.
(We made sure to document the registry tweak that turns it on, knowing that maybe one in 10,000 Windows users would go to the trouble of actually using it.)


What??? registry tweak???
You can just go to tools menu and click InPrivate Browsing.. It is also prominently displayed as a new feature in the website...

And it is good that this is not default. Most of the time, I like to store browsing history, form data, login data etc. If I need to access by bank account or something sensitive like that, I can open an InPrivate browsing window, makes sense.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
No the same thing
Ed Bott 3rd Aug 2010
@rdsm In Private Browsing and In Private Filtering are NOT the same thing.
0 Votes
+ -
So? Spill!!!
wolf_z 3rd Aug 2010
@Ed Bott

What's the registry tweak to permanently enable in-private filtering? And is there an equivalent one for in-private browsing as well?
@Ed Bott

My bad, InPrivate Browsing and InPrivate Filtering are different.

But still, not registry tweak is required for InPrivate Filtering too. It can be enabled and customized from Safety button or Tools Menu.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Registry tweak
Ed Bott 3rd Aug 2010
@rdsm, you are wrong. The registry tweak is REQUIRED to enable the feature automatically. Otherwise, you have to remember to manually turn it on each time you open your browser.

I'll document the reg tweak in an upcoming post. It needs some context. (It's also in Windows 7 Inside Out, on page 234.) For those who are impatient, open Registry Editor, navigate to HKCU\
Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Safety\PrivacIE, add the DWORD value StartMode (if it doesn?t already exist), and set its value to 1. Note the odd spelling of that key!
0 Votes
+ -
Technical Microosft versus Bad Microsoft; like the HP/Intel Aero debacle
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft does not do ethics
dfolk2 3rd Aug 2010
At MS its just about winning. Lying , cheating, stealing, deceiving, anything to get there works for MS.

If you question this, review MS's documented history in this link from the US justice department.

http://www.albion.com/microsoft/findings.html
There is a reason that I haven't purchased a Microsoft product since ME.
The Journal article is a major reinforcement. Microsoft really doesn't want to offer any privacy *or* security!
0 Votes
+ -
Ed: "when my co-authors and I were planning our coverage of Internet Explorer 8 for Windows 7 Inside Out, we spent a day or two dissecting its inner workings and agreed that this feature as implemented was nearly useless. (We made sure to document the registry tweak that turns it on, knowing that maybe one in 10,000 Windows users would go to the trouble of actually using it.)"

=========
So what is the registry tweak? Or do we have to buy your book to find out?
0 Votes
+ -
Ah I see you did share it in the comment section:
=========
Ed: "I'll document the reg tweak in an upcoming post. It needs some context. (It's also in Windows 7 Inside Out, on page 234.) For those who are impatient, open Registry Editor, navigate to HKCU\
Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Safety\PrivacIE, add the DWORD value StartMode (if it doesnt already exist), and set its value to 1. Note the odd spelling of that key!"
0 Votes
+ -
It's no good blaming McAndrews alone. There's an accountant masquerading as a shoe salesman running the show. He's obviously all about the numbers, and cares not at all for the users or their experience.

But considering all the security issues with IE, I have to question your Good Microsoft versus Bad Microsoft theory. It's much more a case of Bad Microsoft versus not so bad Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
So does this full feature still exist in IE8 as the article suggests it does. Surely there should be a feature on how to enable it and maybe show a way of auto enabling it when you boot up or open IE or are you worried about your advertising revenue. Let consumers know how to do it and show with actions that it should have been there from the start.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix