Slashdot Mirror
Changes Are Coming To the EU's Cookie Directive, But It's Not Going Away (softpedia.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The European Commission is listening to suggestions regarding EU laws on privacy and electronic communications (e-Privacy), among which is also the EU Cookie Directive that has made the lives of EU Internet users a living hell. The EU Commission has started an open consultation on this topic and is inviting users and businesses to provide their opinion. From the consultation's text, which is nothing more than a survey, one could argue that the EU isn't intent on removing the directive at all, but only making small adjustments. In its current implementation, most companies ask users if they're OK with storing cookies on their PCs and then collecting their data. One of the questions the Commission asked and is currently looking for an answer is whether companies should be allowed to deny users access to a website if they don't want to accept using cookies. The EU wants Internet companies to build alternative (usable) websites for people that don't want to use cookies at all, and so respect their decision for privacy.
Waiting for my cheque to implement an entire alternate back-end in 3.. 2.. 1..
Shh.
Without cookies being sent back to the server, the server doesn't know what you were doing a moment ago. The design does not maintain the state of the system between transactions. There are other ways of doing this, but this is how http was designed. Yes, cookies are being used to track things that are not involved in the state of the transaction. But, it is hard to eliminate something that is key to the way that http works.
None of this is going to make sense as long as the laws continue to be so completely disconnected from the reality. If a user wants or doesn't want to use cookies, then they have already instructed their browser to take the appropriate action, and it will be perfect in a way that the laws cannot even begin to approach.
Anything the governments do related to this, is irrelevant and wasted. The absolute best case that anyone can hope for, is that they'll do no harm. And that, realistically, will never be achieved.
Choice is obviously the right thing but can or should the law FORCE website to behave like that? What if you don't have the resource to make it working without cookie? What if you need them really? I think the cookie blocking feature is already implemented in the "privacy mode" from all browsers. If you don't want them to track you... use the privacy mode!
Well, that's why I love the Firefox plugin self-destructing cookies. Most websites work fine because they get to store all the cookies they want; but ten seconds after closing the last tab of that page, all it's cookies are wiped out. (Just remember to also block 3rd-party cookies to prevent e.g. Facebook and Google from obtaining persistent cookies by being omnipresent on the web.)
There is a really easy, simple way developers can handle this. Don't use cookies by default. When the user logs in or adds something to their basket have the "you accept we use cookies, here's the privacy policy" text, but when the user simply visits the site don't set any cookies.
That would eliminate 90% of the annoyance and not place an undue burden on developers. It might annoy site operators who were hoping to create profiles of visitors, but fuck those guys.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Your browser uses cookies. You have the power to disable cookies in your browser settings. This website may only request that a cookie be stored, it can not force your browser to store the cookie or return the cookie at a later time. This website can not stop your browser from sending it cookies. Only your web browser can disable or delete cookies. You are even sending this website global session cookies that you or some other website asked to be stored, and there is no possible way for the operators of this website to stop you from doing so. By sending cookies to this website you consent to sending cookies to this website.
Only you can prevent cookies, and you have always had the power to do so. The EU legislators are morons, and it is impossible for this website to actually comply with their insane demands.
I've never understood the problem with cookies. Websites don't control cookies, the Web-browser does.
The browser should only maintain cookies associated with the browsing window for as long as that window is open. There's no use in anything else. No timers of any sort, short or long, it gets ignored.
Now scripting, that's another kettle of fish altogether.
The problem is that the legislators did not really understand the problem that they were trying to solve. The law was intended to require consent if you are tracking the user for longer than the current session. That's an entirely reasonable thing to do. The implementation was a complete disaster because it conflated a mechanism that's used for tracking (and more benign uses) with the act of tracking. To give a car analogy, it's like noticing that a lot of the people who drive dangerously drive red cars and then insisting that all red cars warn you of possible danger of accidents whenever they drive near you.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I used cookies to keep track of the last message that users read and what files for download had been updated. It was a long time ago but you can use cookies for things other than tracking users for ads.
Frankly I thought I was respecting the user's privacy by storing that info on their system vs keeping it in a database.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
If your business model depends on user agents accepting cookies, you are already screwed.
The girl scouts will be horrified to hear that...
You are respecting the user's privacy, and the EU specifically exempts the kind of cookies you are using: http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics...
So you don't need a statement on your site, your use is exempt from the rules.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
'Webmaster'? Really? Is it 1996 again? You seem woefully out of touch with reality, ascribing all sorts of nefarious motives to people you've never met, without any evidence to support your rash judgements.