Am I the only one who thinks this is going to end in tears?

[Old Greg]

Is this a Trojan Horse by a splinter cell of sockies that have broken free to operate independently? It could be the opening salvo in a Matrix / Terminator type war.

[xoggoth]

See regulation of the internet is to be a major subject at G8 conference too. The Illuminati hate it.

BBC News - G8 summit: Arab uprisings set to dominate agenda

Better link:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...74O72L20110525

[doodab]

BBC News - Cookie law deferred for one year

Looks like it's stalling.

Interesting that it seems to be a battle between "online firms" and "privacy groups" and the people who actually use the internet aren't really well represented.

[xoggoth]

Think I mentioned this a few months back. Fortunately there appears to be an exception if you use strictly for necessary purposes of marketing and accounting.

[Sysman]

Website owners face tougher cookie rules CUK05 :: Contractor UK

This is one that raised my eyebrows immediately:

Following an update to the European directive on which those rules were based, the new requirement is, basically and due to privacy concerns; that cookies can only be placed on devices “where the user or subscriber has given their consent.”

I log onto CUK from whichever real or virtual machine is easiest for me at the time, and tick "Remember password". It might even be different browsers on the same machine...

Is CUK now supposed to issue me with a warning whenever I log on via a new system? There's little doubt that the CUK admins could sort something out here, possibly with help from The Chimp, but how on earth are non-IT-savvy sites going to cope?

If we move on to typical-home-user-with-blog or any off the shelf web publishing system, can anyone really expect them to understand how cookies in their web software work? Many probably don't even realise they are there.

[NickFitz]

Does anyone have any clue what the actual intent of this is?

Nobody does, not even the EU legislators who dreamt it up. It's a classic example of politicians enacting legislation covering technical issues they don't understand, because of a vague feeling that "something must be done".

[doodab]

Website owners face tougher cookie rules CUK05 :: Contractor UK

I mean, I can see the point to some extent, but it seems to me the wider problem for privacy is the various systems that track your online usage by having their gubbins embedded all over the place. Are they saying that every site that embeds that sort of tracking has to gain explicit consent or is the case that if you say yes to a particular tracking network once you've said yes to them for every site that uses them? This would appear to indicate it's the latter:

(3) Where an electronic communications network is used by the same person to store or access information in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user on more than one occasion, it is sufficient for the purposes of this regulation that the requirements of paragraph (2) are met in respect of the initial use.

And this would appear to leave a lot of leeway for not having to obtain consent.

(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the technical storage of, or
access to, information--
(a) for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a
communication over an electronic communications network; or
(b) where such storage or access is strictly necessary for the
provision of an information society service requested by the subscriber
or user.

Some interesting examples from the government

The only exception to this rule is if what you are doing is ‘strictly
necessary’ for a service requested by the user. This exception is a
narrow one but might apply, for example, to a cookie you use to
ensure that when a user of your site has chosen the goods they
wish to buy and clicks the ‘add to basket’ or ‘proceed to checkout’
button, your site ‘remembers’ what they chose on a previous page.
You would not need to get consent for this type of activity.

But apparently

The exception would not apply, for example, just
because you have decided that your website is more attractive if
you remember users’ preferences

despite the fact that a user would have to set the preferences, which rather makes the service requested, and subsequent identification of said user would be "strictly necessary" to provide it IMO.

It all seems like a bit of a waste of space to me. Does anyone have any clue what the actual intent of this is?

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisati...gulations.ashx