Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ICO.gov (click on continue without agreeing to cookies)

ico.gov.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: ICO.gov (click on continue without agreeing to cookies)

#51

Post by mike-cardwell »

Limes102 wrote: post #38

Okay, so I don't really use cookies ever, the only one I use is for the PHP Session Identifier. Is this going to be allowed? D: I'm guessing that it will be because ICO is allowed..

It depends on when you set it and why. If you just set it as soon as anyone visits your site, and there is no essential reason for you doing that for the site to work, then you are breaking the law.

If you only set it when somebody logs in to your site, to maintain a logged in session, then it will be fine.

Re: ICO.gov (click on continue without agreeing to cookies)

#52

Post by bxr »

av500 wrote: post #33

websites had that coming for a long time. It's a common industry pattern to overdo things and then get regulated. take e.g german gas stations, they went from adjusting their prices occasionally (e.g. when the oil price changed) to price changes several times per day in order to gouge the most out of the customers. Now, they will get regulated and only be allowed to change their price once per day... they basically a…

This is why we can't have nice things, abuse of something useful for ends undesirable to the masses leads to it getting banned for all uses.

Re: ICO.gov (click on continue without agreeing to cookies)

#53

Post by mike-cardwell »

jschuur wrote: post #26

Couldn't a site just declare a single session ID as essential, and store everything else server side? Or is the problem that you usually don't keep server side session data indefinitely? I suppose you couldn't use client side JavaScript on your cookies in that case either. Does this apply to HTML5 localstorage too?

Whether or not you declare it essential is irrelevant. What matters is if it actually is essential.

As for localstorage, read the guidance from the ICO:

https://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/library/Privacy_and...

Third paragraph: "These changes apply to storage or gaining access to information stored, in the device of a subscriber or user. This means the use of cookies and similar technologies for storing information."

Fifth paragraph: "The Regulations also apply to similar technologies for storing information. This could include, for example, Locally Stored Objects (commonly referred to as "Flash Cookies")."

Re: ICO.gov (click on continue without agreeing to cookies)

#54

Post by JonoW »

nupark2 wrote: post #41
yaix wrote: post #22

Argh! 99% of people have no clue what a "cookie" is used for and just hear that it is "evil" and such. At the same time, these same people have no problem exhibiting themselves of Facebook or tracking their positions on Foursquare. @gov: Just make something like this ( http://www.networkadvertising.org/ > "Conumer opt-out") legally binding for tracking networks (not for individual web sites!) and the whole "Cookie" p…

> 99% of people have no clue what a "cookie" is used for and just hear that it is "evil" and such. 99% of people also don't know how to evaluate the safety of a food additive. Most don't even know proper food handling procedures and couldn't even evaluate the food safety procedures of their favorite restaurant's kitchen (assuming they even had the time to do so). Hence, governmental regulatory bodies. You might not a…

I'm not sure your comparison with food safety is completely apt; This cookie law is the equalivant of being asked "Do you consent to the use of sodium benzoate in your food" before entering any restaurant. Most people will have no idea what to make of that, and will probably hate being asked every time.

It would be different if tracking was such a problem that it was outlawed all together (like dangerous food additives are), as that would be clear to everyone how to proceed.

Re: ICO.gov (click on continue without agreeing to cookies)

#55

Post by gcb »

geon wrote: post #14
gcb wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, remember the old firefox moto? "Take back the web"? it's just changed to "Made to make the Web a better place."... can it get more Orwelian? :D Give me back my browser control. and stop hiding my url bar, dammit! ...they start removing the protocol, nobody bothers. ha http, who cares? Then move a little to the side, 'to align with the tab'. Then will make it autohide. And before you notice the only way to go to…

There's no reason to have a URL bar on the top of the screen all the time, just to enter a url manually. A "Enter URL" menu item would Work just fine.

having the url bar always visible had the added benefit of not promoting dumb thins like vignete cms url schema.

plus I more copy from urls than type then in in

Re: ICO.gov (click on continue without agreeing to cookies)

#56

Post by gcb »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #15
gcb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone else is bugged by the lack of control on your referrer headers, star this http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=84177 For the address bar, i had no luck finding a bug. anyone?

FWIW, on Firefox I use the refcontrol addon, and I've not experienced any problems yet. If the referer domain is different to the domain of the request, it modifies the referer to be the root of the site being requested.

that's even better than the about:config option of allowing it just for clicks, not for scripts/iframes/etc. thanks
Post reply on HN