3 ms·

If literally an entire industry misapplies or misunderstands your regulations, that's a failure as a regulator. But in this case I don't think people have misu

If literally an entire industry misapplies or misunderstands your regulations, that's a failure as a regulator. But in this case I don't think people have misunderstood them. I think the distinction between "tracking" and "non tracking" cookies is one that exists primarily in the heads of government officials.

talideon 10y ago
> If literally an entire industry misapplies or misunderstands your regulations, that's a failure as a regulator. No, the issue is with the lazy, cack-handed way the cookie directive was implemented in UK law. Those obtrusive pop-ups aren't a requirement of the directive (which only requires consent, and doesn't specify how that consent is obtained), but of the UK's Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendment) Regulations 2011. And, of course, regulation 6 is worded in just about the most confusing way possible. OTOH, both the 2002 and 2009 directives have much clearer language, which is funny as they allow latitude to member states as to how they're implemented, and the UK chose the most awkward and intrusive method of implementing them as far as cookies go. > I think the distinction between "tracking" and "non tracking" cookies is one that exists primarily in the heads of government officials. No, there's a pretty solid line, but it's like the line between murder and manslaughter: intent. If you're using cookies to help autofill data the user would otherwise have to fill themselves, that's not tracking. If you're using cookies to provide some persistent state across pages (sessions, carts, &c.), that's not tracking. If you're using cookies to records a user's actions on the site, that's borderline, but as long as that data is anonymised and treated only as part of an aggregate, a solid argument can be made that's not tracking, but it might be good to inform the user anyway. Once you start targeting individual users, that's certainly tracking.

talideon 10y ago

> If literally an entire industry misapplies or misunderstands your regulations, that's a failure as a regulator. No, the issue is with the lazy, cack-handed way the cookie directive was implemented in UK law. Those obtrusive pop-ups aren't a requirement of the directive (which only requires consent, and doesn't specify how that consent is obtained), but of the UK's Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendment) Regulations 2011. And, of course, regulation 6 is worded in just about the most confusing way possible. OTOH, both the 2002 and 2009 directives have much clearer language, which is funny as they allow latitude to member states as to how they're implemented, and the UK chose the most awkward and intrusive method of implementing them as far as cookies go. > I think the distinction between "tracking" and "non tracking" cookies is one that exists primarily in the heads of government officials. No, there's a pretty solid line, but it's like the line between murder and manslaughter: intent. If you're using cookies to help autofill data the user would otherwise have to fill themselves, that's not tracking. If you're using cookies to provide some persistent state across pages (sessions, carts, &c.), that's not tracking. If you're using cookies to records a user's actions on the site, that's borderline, but as long as that data is anonymised and treated only as part of an aggregate, a solid argument can be made that's not tracking, but it might be good to inform the user anyway. Once you start targeting individual users, that's certainly tracking.