3 ms·
Eh, couldn't you make the argument that the Cookie warnings showed that a government body could meaningfully change the experience of the internet? As small as
by ben_jones 9y ago
Eh, couldn't you make the argument that the Cookie warnings showed that a government body could meaningfully change the experience of the internet? As small as the warnings are, had anything like it been done before?
- foota 9y agoSure, now we get annoying warnings on every website we visit....
- kuschku 9y agoBecause the UK intentionally built a loophole into their version of the law. The actual original cookie law, that was decided on EU level, requires users actually to be able to opt out. But it was a directive, and so countries could interpret it for local implementations. The GDPR is a regulation, which means its text is directly law, and it also means it can be a lot stricter.
- grabeh 9y agoNot so much a loophole but the UK Information Commissioner certainly adopted a more relaxed approach to enforcement of the requirements of the cookie law compared to other countries. And the law required prior informed consent to cookies with opt-out not generally being considered to be valid consent.
- michalskop 9y agoTalking from experience from a "new" EU country with solid IT scene: the "cookie law" is not enforced at all. Google would be probably the only one theoretically enforcing it (most of websites do show a message because they use Google Analytics), but it would go against Google's interest, so they are not really enforcing it either.
- pg_is_a_butt 9y agocouldn't you make the argument that the USA showed that Europe has no real power, and militias could easily usurp their authority? you're all idiots.