3 ms·

Check out: http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm First party session cookies (e.g

by zxcmx 9y ago

Check out: http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm First party session cookies (e.g. login cookies) and several other reasonable uses are exempt. The law is most strongly targeted at google analytics / facebook / omniture / etc cookies, which are third-party tracking cookies that follow the user around the Internet. In your case, if you are setting a first-party non-persistent cookie which does not "identify" the user (except to determine usage patterns on the site) then it would be pretty reasonable to consider it exempt from notification. However, you should throw up a cookie warning if you are setting a persistent cookie or using third-party tracking scripts (which will go ahead and use third-party tracking cookies).

ge96 9y ago
Oh yeah >...follow the user around the internet that is interesting, I'm not even sure how that would work once they leave your site (I am not aware at this time).
- floatboth 9y ago
  uhh… your site embeds google analytics, which sets cookies on google's domains. other site embeds google analytics, it reads the google cookies… and so on.
  - ge96 9y ago
    right I thought of something else. this thought did cross my mind but can't prove it. caught in the web (of Google)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
kennydude 9y ago
TIL session cookies are exempt. Seems it's a very misunderstood law, and is designed to make people think about tracking
- bjpbakker 9y ago
  Yeah this law is very unclear. Probably written by tech-agnostic folks, mostly. The intention is mainly to prevent tracking without permission (so maybe 'no-tracking law' may have been a better name), no matter how you technically implement that. Obviously this concerns social media and analytics (not only third-party). It's weird how the law states that a website must ask specific permission, given that (modern) browsers support the Do Not Track HTTP header [1]. IMO this would've been much more friendly to visitors (i.e. decide once if you want to get tracked or not; it's mostly the same few parties (Facebook, Google, et al) tracking you anyway). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track

by zxcmx 9y ago

ge96 9y ago

Oh yeah >...follow the user around the internet that is interesting, I'm not even sure how that would work once they leave your site (I am not aware at this time).

floatboth 9y ago
uhh… your site embeds google analytics, which sets cookies on google's domains. other site embeds google analytics, it reads the google cookies… and so on.
- ge96 9y ago
  right I thought of something else. this thought did cross my mind but can't prove it. caught in the web (of Google)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

kennydude 9y ago

TIL session cookies are exempt. Seems it's a very misunderstood law, and is designed to make people think about tracking

bjpbakker 9y ago
Yeah this law is very unclear. Probably written by tech-agnostic folks, mostly. The intention is mainly to prevent tracking without permission (so maybe 'no-tracking law' may have been a better name), no matter how you technically implement that. Obviously this concerns social media and analytics (not only third-party). It's weird how the law states that a website must ask specific permission, given that (modern) browsers support the Do Not Track HTTP header [1]. IMO this would've been much more friendly to visitors (i.e. decide once if you want to get tracked or not; it's mostly the same few parties (Facebook, Google, et al) tracking you anyway). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track