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

The cookie law is dead, you’re welcome

blog.silktide.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: The cookie law is dead, you’re welcome

#41

Post by sageikosa »

grabeh wrote: post #38
randallsquared wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

taking a relaxed approach to enforcement. Whenever a group largely objects to a law, it seems that some of the group will say something like "Well, at least they're not enforcing it", or "Well, at least prosecutors have discretion on bringing charges", as though this is better, when in fact lax enforcement is worse. If people are not in immediate danger from a law, no matter how bad it is, they will be less inclined…

You are right - the risk is of course that with a bad law on the books, the enforcement strategy could change at any moment.

...or be subject to stochastic enforcement. Anything not predictable is inherently risky and likely to be avoided by the more risk averse. The actors engaging in more risky behavior then become the prototypes for bad behavior and a justification for tougher enforcement and more laws.

Re: The cookie law is dead, you’re welcome

#42

Post by ppod »

gioele wrote: post #20

To all the people bashing the EU e-Privacy directive [1] (the "cookie law"): have you bothered read it all? If so, could you please pin-point which part of the directive you do not like? Which part are hard to implement? Can you also explain us (with the same verve used to bash the directive) how your national implementation is even worse than the EU-wide directive? The directive is quite short, definitely shorter th…

This part:

>Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose.

Could certainly be interpreted to mean that users must actively accept or refuse cookies before accessing a website. I don't like this because the inconvenience outweighs the privacy benefits, in my opinion.

Re: The cookie law is dead, you’re welcome

#43

Post by ppod »

jerf wrote: post #36
yaix wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the world of EU bashing. People usually never read anything that comes from Brussels, but love to complain about it. Unfortunately, that is especially true for British media.

Welcome to the world of $LARGE_ORGANIZATION bashing. People usually never read anything that comes from $LARGE_ORGANIZATION, but love to complain about it. Unfortunately, that is especially true for $EVERYONE. (Sorry. Excessively-specific adjectives are a bit of a pet peeve of mine.)

Aren't those nouns?

Re: The cookie law is dead, you’re welcome

#44

Post by jeremyjh »

ppod wrote: post #43
jerf wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the world of $LARGE_ORGANIZATION bashing. People usually never read anything that comes from $LARGE_ORGANIZATION, but love to complain about it. Unfortunately, that is especially true for $EVERYONE. (Sorry. Excessively-specific adjectives are a bit of a pet peeve of mine.)

Aren't those nouns?

Proper nouns at that.

Re: The cookie law is dead, you’re welcome

#45

Post by jerf »

ppod wrote: post #43
jerf wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the world of $LARGE_ORGANIZATION bashing. People usually never read anything that comes from $LARGE_ORGANIZATION, but love to complain about it. Unfortunately, that is especially true for $EVERYONE. (Sorry. Excessively-specific adjectives are a bit of a pet peeve of mine.)

Aren't those nouns?

In this case, sure. I mentally think of it as the excessively-specific adjective problem, because usually I'm wanting to replace "British media" with "media" or something. This shot right off the adjectives entirely. (This is explanation, not defense, BTW; you are entirely correct.)

Re: The cookie law is dead, you’re welcome

#46

Post by gioele »

ppod wrote: post #42
gioele wrote: post #20

To all the people bashing the EU e-Privacy directive [1] (the "cookie law"): have you bothered read it all? If so, could you please pin-point which part of the directive you do not like? Which part are hard to implement? Can you also explain us (with the same verve used to bash the directive) how your national implementation is even worse than the EU-wide directive? The directive is quite short, definitely shorter th…

This part: >Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose. Could certainly be interpreted to mean that users must actively accept or refuse cookies before accessing a website. I don't like this because the inconvenience outweighs the privacy benefits, in my opinion.

That part is not part of the law, just introductory text. The law says in Article 5:

«3. Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia, about the purposes of the processing.

This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service.»

A site can store data on a person's computer only if that person has give its consent to it or if it is technically needed. Your ad campaigns, your A/B tests, your detailed analytics are not technically needed and I want to have a say on whether they are going to be stored in my computer.

Please note that many national implementation explicitly allow for broad mechanism like "accept all cookies" buttons during installations as long they are set or clicked by the user and are not simple defaults.

Re: The cookie law is dead, you’re welcome

#47

Post by mikeash »

jerf wrote: post #45
ppod wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't those nouns?

In this case, sure. I mentally think of it as the excessively-specific adjective problem, because usually I'm wanting to replace "British media" with "media" or something. This shot right off the adjectives entirely. (This is explanation, not defense, BTW; you are entirely correct.)

I would call it a problem of excessive specificity in general, where specifying adjectives is an example of it!

Re: The cookie law is dead, you’re welcome

#48

Post by jerf »

mikeash wrote: post #47
jerf wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, sure. I mentally think of it as the excessively-specific adjective problem, because usually I'm wanting to replace "British media" with "media" or something. This shot right off the adjectives entirely. (This is explanation, not defense, BTW; you are entirely correct.)

I would call it a problem of excessive specificity in general, where specifying adjectives is an example of it!

I stand corrected.

Re: The cookie law is dead, you’re welcome

#49

Post by ppod »

gioele wrote: post #46
ppod wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This part: >Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose. Could certainly be interpreted to mean that users must actively accept or refuse cookies before accessing a website. I don't like this because the inconvenience outweighs the privacy benefits, in my opinion.

That part is not part of the law, just introductory text. The law says in Article 5: «3. Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information, in ac…

Whether it is in the recital or the enacting terms is irrelevant, I quoted the recital because it is a little clearer.

The effect is the same - sites have interpreted the law to mean that a pop-up prompt is necessary. I think that the inconvenience of this outweighs the benefit. You might disagree, but don't try to make it sound as if everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

Re: The cookie law is dead, you’re welcome

#50

Post by [deleted] »

ppod wrote: post #43
jerf wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the world of $LARGE_ORGANIZATION bashing. People usually never read anything that comes from $LARGE_ORGANIZATION, but love to complain about it. Unfortunately, that is especially true for $EVERYONE. (Sorry. Excessively-specific adjectives are a bit of a pet peeve of mine.)

Aren't those nouns?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN