41–50 of 50 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yes, the regulation was rushed in by people not really sure what to do or what was happening. Why it couldn't be a browser option, I have no idea.
Isn't it already a browser option?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the UK's law? If it was, they seemed to backtrack on it and say that it's fine as long as you mention it in your site's TOS
It was an EU wide law. Each country implemented EU in similar but different ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the UK's law? If it was, they seemed to backtrack on it and say that it's fine as long as you mention it in your site's TOS
It was an EU wide law. Each country implemented EU in similar but different ways.
AFAIK the EU dictates the result, not the means. UK's first implementation of the e-Privacy Directive was unfortunate, but I don't think it means the directive was a bad idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"For advertisers this is a non-starter, because it prevents you from knowing the size of your audience. All sites would immediately begin requiring some form of "login" in your scenario in order to enable tracking again." If this is really a non-starter for advertisers, then mandating it will effectively ban advertising, non? Remember: your business model is not sacrosanct! Disruption!
It will also kill most "free content" websites that live off the ads revenue. Are you ready for paywalls everywhere, even if subscription is 25 � / mo?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was an EU wide law. Each country implemented EU in similar but different ways.
It is a EU Directive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union) AFAIK the EU dictates the result, not the means. UK's first implementation of the e-Privacy Directive was unfortunate, but I don't think it means the directive was a bad idea.
It's up to individual countries to implement the minimum, and likewise, each country will implement each one slightly different. The UK law and the EU Directive are basically the same, "It's illegal to do X, Y and Z unless you do W etc." There isn't really a mean/results differnce here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will also kill most "free content" websites that live off the ads revenue. Are you ready for paywalls everywhere, even if subscription is 25 � / mo?
Your symbol comes out as a Unicode replacement character for me. What was it supposed to be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For advertisers this is a non-starter, because it prevents you from knowing the size of your audience. All sites would immediately begin requiring some form of "login" in your scenario in order to enable tracking again. If you can't track uniques, you can't sell ads, and that's pretty much all there is to it. So there's huge incentive to undermine any scheme to prevent unique user tracking. The solution is to somehow…
"For advertisers this is a non-starter, because it prevents you from knowing the size of your audience. All sites would immediately begin requiring some form of "login" in your scenario in order to enable tracking again." If this is really a non-starter for advertisers, then mandating it will effectively ban advertising, non? Remember: your business model is not sacrosanct! Disruption!
Just recognize that unless you do ban advertising, the result of this change will not be what's intended. The intended result is that websites, in general, stop tracking anonymous users. Instead, it will result in every user being explicitly tracked.
The most important issue here is that the political feasibility of reducing tracking of anonymous users is equivalent to the political feasibility of banning advertising.
(I'm slightly overselling here -- in reality, a good amount of advertising of the "sponsorship" form would still work. But the impact would be large enough that most websites would force login as I describe rather than stop tracking people.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For advertisers this is a non-starter, because it prevents you from knowing the size of your audience. All sites would immediately begin requiring some form of "login" in your scenario in order to enable tracking again. If you can't track uniques, you can't sell ads, and that's pretty much all there is to it. So there's huge incentive to undermine any scheme to prevent unique user tracking. The solution is to somehow…
To sell ads you don't need to show exact size of audience, estimation is enough as proven by TV.
The result would likely be tracking via login as I describe, rather than true anonymity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And in theory less data, right? a session ID doesn't need to store the kilobytes that cookies do.
Why can't there be multiple sessions for different functionalities? I am not sure people are going to relinquish the cookie concept. All the sessions are doing is have the "cookies" transported as part of the HTTP message and not as a separate file (payload)