BBC Site Uses Cookies To Inform Visitors of Anti-Cookie Law

Andy Smith writes "As of 26 May 2011 web sites in the UK must get a user's permission to set cookies. If you go to the BBC's commercial TV listings site Radio Times you'll see a message telling you about the new law. Go to the site again, though, and you don't see the message. How does the site know you've already seen it? By setting a cookie of course! It doesn't ask for permission."

Comments

idiot submission

[Anonymous Coward]

The new cookie laws are only about tracking cookies, not session cookies or cookies necessary for the functioning of the website.
That cookie is not a tracking cookie, as such it isn't breaking the law. non-news.

Re:idiot submission

[Co0Ps]

Ummm.. it tracks if you have given permission for cookie tracking. Doesn't that make it a "tracking cookie"? Isn't all cookies tracking cookies? The only thing web masters have to do is to claim that all their cookies are "necessary for the functioning of the website" and "not tracking cookies". Isn't that a huge loophole?

Re:idiot submission

[SilentChasm]

By tracking cookies I think they mean uniquely identifiable, like an ID number for a specific user that they can then tie advertising preferences to. Tracking stuff like site settings seems like an actual valid use of cookies.

I do agree with you though on the "necessary for the functioning of the website" loophole, as they could just include advertising tracking as "necessary" (for financial reasons of course).

Re:idiot submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not, if the cookie only contains "Don't show the message again", it isn't tracking. Tracking is when the information makes you uniquely identifiable, which this clearly isn't.

Re:idiot submission

[pclminion]

The only thing web masters have to do is to claim that all their cookies are "necessary for the functioning of the website" and "not tracking cookies". Isn't that a huge loophole?

That's why we have these funny buildings called "courthouses" where we evaluate things critically instead of using the law like an algorithm.

Guess you didn't read their link

[Blahah]

If you follow the link in the pop-up, the BBC website explains that the changes will be phased in gradually over the Summer.

"The government's view is that there should be a phased approach to the implementation of these changes. Over the summer, we will be working on developing the best methods for obtaining your consent.

In the meantime, you can control cookies by setting your device to notify you when a cookie is issued, or not to receive cookies at any time. We will ensure that we continue to provide you with clear and comprehensive information about the cookies we use, so that you can make informed decisions."

On top of that, the law only covers tracking cookies, but the BBC is going to include all cookies in it's policy. No story here.

Olo:Ha

[Fuzzums]

But there is a significant difference between a don't-show-message cookie and a we-know-everything-about-you cookie.

Don't use this to prove God doesn't exist

[Provocateur]

nt

Re:Lack of tech know how

[beelsebob]

No, that's what you get when the person writing the article doesn't understand what's happened - it's absolutely legal to store cookies that are required for the functionality of the site. This will clearly count. What's not legal is storing cookies that are only for tracking you without asking.

Here's how it goes:

[VortexCortex]

Your Browser: Hey BBC, gimme a web page with the URI: http://raidotimes.com/

BBC Server: Here is the web page you requested, with cookie notification text (since you did not provide any cookie), and also a cookie.

Your Browser: Thanks! Let's see, the user settings say, "Accept Cookie" I'm permitted by the user to store this cookie.

--- Later ---

Your Browse: Hey BBC, gimme a web page [...] and also here's that cookie that you gave me which my user already gave permission for me to save and return to you via their preferences.

BBC Server: Ah, I see you provided me the cookie that if you had not given your browser permission to send me, I wouldn't be seeing right now -- I guess I won't show you that cookie info text this time.

YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DISABLE THE MOTHER FUCKING COOKIES -- USE IT AND STOP FUCKING UP OUR INTERNET WITH YOUR NOOB LAWS!

P.S. If the basic cookie settings aren't enough for you, use an existing plugin like Cookie Monster for Firefox -- More power over your god damn cookies than you could ever want. Honestly, if you don't understand it, leave it the fuck alone, before you hurt someone!

Re:Here's how it goes:

[Cogneato]

Back in the day, I remember a setting on iBrowse (Amiga) that caused the browser to ask before accepting each and every cookie. I don't see that setting on my current browsers, though I may just be overlooking it. Surely the better solution is at the browser level. Default it on to ask, give the user a way to turn it off. Or, default it to not ask, but show the user information about cookies and instructions to change the setting the first time they run their browser.

Education is an amazing thing. Web developers should not be subject to laws that are open to interpretation just because some people don't want to learn how to use something they are operating. Imagine if we applied the same philosophy to driving a car -- all owners of buildings need to post warnings that running into the building with your car can cause harm.

Yes, going on the internet takes a tiny bit of responsibility on the user's part. If the user is not smart enough to exercise responsibility with cookies when educated about them, imagine what they are doing with facebook, four square, hook-up dating sites, and so on.

Re:Here's how it goes:

[ammorais]

There's a lot of people on the Internet - billions, literally. The vast majority of them are not technically inclined; most have no idea how the Internet works or what cookies actually are.

And sometimes, you actually want cookies. For example, on a news site such as the BBC, you may want to be able to log in and post a comment... and then log out again and not have the site continue tracking you. How do you do that? Short of constantly disabling and re-enabling cookies on a per-site basis, there's no way. Expecting users to do that is idiotic and only shows that a serious disconnect from reality on your part.

Did you know you can still track people you without cookies? You can use a combination of user-agent/IP/browser/language to track you with considerable accuracy.
So your solution for is to ask people that don't know/want to know what are cookies, if they want cookies? How kind of question box you suggest?
Something like this perhaps?

Do you accept cookies? If you press YES this site will work
properlly, and we can track you if we want to.
If you press NO this site won't work properly, but we can't
track you trough cookies. We can still track you by other means
if we want to but not with cookies!

| YES | | NO |