here we go, trying to regulate the internet on :argh:
oh, and here is one solution for those who do not want to be tracked on the internet, try disabling cookies or not visiting any sites (or using the internet) in the first place
[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;29736432]here we go, trying to regulate the internet on :argh:
oh, and here is one solution for those who do not want to be tracked on the internet, try disabling cookies or not visiting any sites (or using the internet) in the first place[/QUOTE]
Bad reading.
[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;29736432]here we go, trying to regulate the internet on :argh:
oh, and here is one solution for those who do not want to be tracked on the internet, try disabling cookies or not visiting any sites (or using the internet) in the first place[/QUOTE]
Uhh, this is [i]good[/i] for the consumer.
[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;29736432]here we go, trying to regulate the internet on :argh:
oh, and here is one solution for those who do not want to be tracked on the internet, try disabling cookies or not visiting any sites (or using the internet) in the first place[/QUOTE]
Uh, it is to protect our [i]privacy?[/i]
Not for nothing, but i don't think any single government intervention in anything has ever run under the banner of being bad, so I wouldn't take solace in the fact they're branding it as good.
That said
[quote]However, some uses of cookies can
involve creating detailed profiles of an individual’s browsing activity.
If you are doing this, or allowing it to happen, on your website or
across a range of sites, it is clear that you are doing something that
could be quite intrusive – the more privacy intrusive your activity,
the more priority you will need to give to getting meaningful
consent. [/quote]
So you can't log users activity on your own site? Cookies aren't cross-site compatible so it could only be on your own sites. Further - What would cookies have to do with [b]anything[/b] in this case? Places like facepunch who yes, monitor which topics you visit so they can know if they've been read as a part of it's functionality don't use cookies to do this, they use the database to do this. I wouldn't imagine you would ever need cookies to store this type of information. Even if you're tracking activity for what is deemed some sort of nefarious purpose, why would you use cookies? That, as a web developer, is fucking stupid. Cookies are under control of the user, they can delete them at any time, look at them at any time, install other browsers and aren't reliable as a mechanism for tracking activity.
Finally, what will this law even do? All you have to do is append your agreement on your sign-up page to say we're tracking you and everything you do and every idiot will hit agree anyway.
So there, stupid law is stupid.
Well my site uses 0 cookies, but even if it did you can fuck off telling me what to do.
This would be annoying if they were required to ask about permission for cookies at every single site.
They better come up with a good way to do this that also protects our privacy well.
I'm sorry to all of you who believe that your government should step in and [del]regulate[/del] restrict every facet of your daily life, but there are better routes for protecting your privacy online. I don't want an ideological debate to start up but I would like to say that government regulation of the internet, whether or not it is seemingly in your best interest, is only the first paving stone to regulation that is restrictive on your internet usage(inb4 conspiracy theorist) How will this law be enforced? will the government block your access to sites that are not willing to follow their guidelines? Should it not be the right of every internet user to decide for themselves if they trust a site and its practices? If enough users were to protest a site because of its practices, it would either be forced to change its ways or go under, just as any other service would.
tl;dr :rant:
You guys should all probably have actually read the new guideline document, which was linked in the article. It took me literally 15 seconds to find this:
"The new requirement is essentially that cookies can only be placed on machines where the user or subscriber has given their consent."
That is all. Nothing to cry about here.
[editline]10th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rayjingstorm;29742468]Should it not be the right of every internet user to decide for themselves if they trust a site and its practices?[/QUOTE]
Of course not, 95% of people don't know shit about cookies, even people who have heard of them mostly just think of cookies as those things you delete when your browser isn't working
[QUOTE=smurfy;29743068]You guys should all probably have actually read the new guideline document, which was linked in the article. It took me literally 15 seconds to find this:
"The new requirement is essentially that cookies can only be placed on machines where the user or subscriber has given their consent."
That is all. Nothing to cry about here.[/QUOTE]
I read the form, and it doesn't change anything, why should the government even get involved? I suppose it is in the UK... :britain:
I've no interest in getting into an argument with someone who clearly won't change their mind
Just sucks for websites across the world.
I live in Canada, therefore I comply with Canadian laws.
[QUOTE=smurfy;29743207]I've no interest in getting into an argument with someone who clearly won't change their mind[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the internet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
