11–20 of 70 posts
Well at least they realised they were being a bit thick; they could have just kept on blindly enforcing it. I think it really hit home when they lost a serious percentage of their analytics data.
A similar law is still going strong in The Netherlands. As of this year, most Dutch sites greet you with an annoying pop-up.
Browsers already have the ability to ask the user if they want to accept a cookie. So all this law did was reproduced browser functionality that has existed all the way back to Netscape. That all being said however, I'm not entirely sure it is "dead." The current legal standing from my understanding is a grey area...
The cookie law is in no way dead, the ICO is just doing what every other 'compliant' site has always done. New policy for the ICO site: > Cookies set on arrival to the site. New cookies banner displayed. Banner explains that the website uses cookies and that cookies have been set, tells users they can change their cookie settings (via a new cookies page), or continue to use the site. I always thought the "set first a…
The ICO spent a year banging on about how you need explicit consent, and lots of people ran around implementing various solutions that make people click buttons and are generally incredibly annoying. Then, about 12 hours before the law came into effect, the ICO said "Actually, you know what? Implicit consent is fine."
On the off-chance anyone is still interested in this sort of thing, I wrote a small implicit consent script after the ICO clarified their position: http://radiac.net/projects/cookieuse/
A similar law is still going strong in The Netherlands. As of this year, most Dutch sites greet you with an annoying pop-up.
Annoyance, related to privacy. I vote for being "annoyed".
Examples:
NOS (public news broadcaster) and Uitzending Gemist (public television catch up) are interesting cases because apparently they’re actually required by law to collect user statistics.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/26/cookies-law...
And isn't that why sites like The Guardian, BBC etc. have been using a banner anyway?
A similar law is still going strong in The Netherlands. As of this year, most Dutch sites greet you with an annoying pop-up.
Is the Dutch law only for .nl domains? Domains hosted in NL? Sites owned by Dutch companies?
Browsers already have the ability to ask the user if they want to accept a cookie. So all this law did was reproduced browser functionality that has existed all the way back to Netscape. That all being said however, I'm not entirely sure it is "dead." The current legal standing from my understanding is a grey area...
A similar law is still going strong in The Netherlands. As of this year, most Dutch sites greet you with an annoying pop-up.
One thing that is still unclear to me about the Dutch law: Is the Dutch law only for .nl domains? Domains hosted in NL? Sites owned by Dutch companies?
Imagine a dutch company with servers in the netherlands, witha .com address. Why would they be exempt from dutch law?
Browsers already have the ability to ask the user if they want to accept a cookie. So all this law did was reproduced browser functionality that has existed all the way back to Netscape. That all being said however, I'm not entirely sure it is "dead." The current legal standing from my understanding is a grey area...
No, the law also prohibited use (without permission) of such things as flash cookies and cookie-like things stored in HTML5's web storage, HTTP ETags, IE userData storage, Silverlight isolated storage, etc. The browser has no control over these things, only standard HTTP cookies for which it is responsible.