EU Cookie Law

[Lucio]

So, the Cookie Law is starting to make it's effects known, with various sites (including Hexus), now displaying a banner that generally reads "We place cookies on your PC, if you ignore me, we'll do it anyway"

I have to ask what is the freaking point! Seriously, this law should have been written so *unless* I accept them (and passive use of the site should not count as consent), they don't get placed, and I accept that I lose functionality. As it stands, all we have is yet another warning to click through so website owners can go "well we did warn you, not our fault guv"


NB: I'm not criticising Hexus for it's implimentation, most sites I've been using the last couple of days have had near identical implimentations

[finlay666]

I also thought you had to opt-in by default, not opt out (though there is a blind eye as long as it's mostly compliant)

I'm also only seeing the top notification when I'm on the main Hexus site, not the forum (my default landing spot)

Not sure how that works though seeing as technically they are 3rd party cookies for functionality (vBulletin) and 3rd party for other things like analytics/referrals

[aidanjt]

Like virtually all EU laws, all it does is add additional operating expenditure, while not actually solve any problem. No doubt the technocrats completely neglected to consult with anyone who actually has a clue about the technology.

[Agent]

Like virtually all EU laws, all it does is add additional operating expenditure, while not actually solve any problem. No doubt the technocrats completely neglected to consult with anyone who actually has a clue about the technology.

It's worse than that. They've actually believe they are making things *better*.

[Steve]

What I don't understand is why the browser authors bear no responsibility for shipping software that automatically accepts cookies from anywhere. The EU law has little effect on cookie-happy sites outside of their jurisdiction... if browsers had to have a different model for accepting cookies, it'd protect more users across more sites.

The reality is the people they're trying to protect will just click "yes" to anything anyway. The savvy people already had their own solution if they didn't want cookies following them around, and they know what to do to whitelist a cookie that is needed for proper functionality.

I'm a lot more interested in the "do not track" header, because it doesn't get in the way of pre-existing conventions, which should make it a lot easier to work with.

[peterb]

It's worse than that. They've actually believe they are making things *better*.

True but typical "we have to be sween to be doing something" approach.

Impressed with the HEXUS's implementation of the policy though. Discrete, but a clear explanation, and appropriate for the leading technology forum to be ahead of the game on this

[KeyboardDemon]

I also thought you had to opt-in by default

This would make the browsing and research far too tedious, it would be so frustrating if each time I visited a new site I had to click an accept button in order to progress further, I prefer to use my browser's privacy settings. There are Cookie manager's available that help give information on the cookies being stored on a PC and these can then whitelist or blacklist cookies as required, I haven't really looked into thses as yet but I think it is worth having one and running it from time to time.

Like virtually all EU laws, all it does is add additional operating expenditure, while not actually solve any problem. No doubt the technocrats completely neglected to consult with anyone who actually has a clue about the technology.

It does seem that there is a general belief that an inconvenience imposed by legislation must be there for the good of all, so rather than fix a problem just stick a barrier in people's way and the masses will think the problem has been dealt with, this is the EU equivalent of sweeping it under the carpet so now when I walk into the room the dust is kicked up and it makes me sneeze, which is an inconvenience but at least it looks clean.

Impressed with the HEXUS's implementation of the policy though. Discrete, but a clear explanation, and appropriate for the leading technology forum to be ahead of the game on this

I've just had a look at this, it was really easy to read, and made sense. Well done Hexus and thanks.

[finlay666]

This would make the browsing and research far too tedious, it would be so frustrating if each time I visited a new site I had to click an accept button in order to progress further

Tedious != illegal

Sites aren't meant to actually implement a cookie then ask the user if they want it, there is meant to be consent prior to this
Some sites have just used a splash page that the user lands on if they dont have a track/notrack persisted cookie or similar (as 1st party ones necessary for function are ok)

[Jonatron]

On the subject of privacy, I'm not sure if I like the "Members who have read this thread" thing below.

[Saracen]

On the subject of privacy, I'm not sure if I like the "Members who have read this thread" thing below.

And it can be misleading.

It's not unusual for me to click into a thread after reading the title, realise I'm not interested after a line or two, and leave. I certainly haven't "read" the thread, just barely glanced at the first post, or two.

[Steve]

Ironically, I think that's turned off for non-moderator/admin usergroups by default (at least a random check of a couple of usergroups suggests so). So that information was... erm... private. Until you mentioned it

[Saracen]

Semi-private.

But in the interests of openness, I don't think it should be unknown that mods (or sometimes, admins) can get info that members can't. For instance, I can look up a members registration email address.

Certainly, as a member of many forums, I assume any information I provide, and on any activity I do, is available to those that run the service ... and sometimes, absolutely needs to be. Such an assumption seems safe, as it often is available, even if it doesn't appear to be.

[Jonatron]

I didn't see nothing, I didn't hear nothing.

[DR]

I personally think that the issue more so is the tracking which gets passed to allow adverts to appear on other site based on what you've viewed.

Such as if you hit a property site - then read a media site if you see ads for houses.

We don't pass this info on - we control all of our ads (as much as possible) so actually we are highly unlikely to actually cause any concern but we wanted to let you guys know what we are doing.

[Noxvayl]

I didn't see nothing, I didn't hear nothing.

I can't tell if those double negatives are intentional, I suspect they are.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not bothered by the access admins have to information on the forums, it is required if they are going to deal with trouble makers effectively and proved useful when I was admin of a forum. I do expect forums not to sell personal information like Facebook which is why I'm not bothered.

By the way does Hexus use any statistics on how visitors click on the website to help you optimise the layout?

[Steve]

By the way does Hexus use any statistics on how visitors click on the website to help you optimise the layout?

Sometimes. We use google analytics. I once ran clickheat on the site - which was quite cool. But GA is better than it nowadays.