4 ms·

I don't even understand how a cookie notice is equivalent to consent [1]. Anyone who consumed the content in this message agrees to pay this user 1 BTC [1] ht

by a_imho 9y ago

I don't even understand how a cookie notice is equivalent to consent [1]. Anyone who consumed the content in this message agrees to pay this user 1 BTC [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie#EU_cookie_directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie#EU_cookie_directiv...

kilburn 9y ago
In websites using this technique, consent is not assumed until you keep browsing the website. Hence, the notice cannot be in past tense like yours :P
tzahola 9y ago
Shit, you got me! Post your BTC address please... :(
rbehrends 9y ago
It isn't. If you look at the EU's information about it [1], you must be able to refuse processing of information that's not necessary for the functioning of the site. Virtually no site outside the EU's own ones does that. Ironically, there are some that have them even though the only cookies they use are ones that are necessary for the functioning of the site, and so are exempt. Note that this isn't just about cookies. It's pretty much any information being sent from the user's computer or stored on the user's computer: "Member States shall ensure that the use of electronic communications networks to store information or to gain access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear and comprehensive information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and is offered the right to refuse such processing by the data controller." As far as I can tell, this is mostly because member states capitulated before online advertising exchanges (it's a directive, not a regulation, so it is implemented by member states) and allowed them to work around the clear intent of the directive. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  Really this sounds like a situation where they're setting up a system where every actor is in violation, but there's an understanding that you won't be charged, unless someone doesn't like you. That's worrisome when it applies to people, and I'd like to think its worrisome when applied to corporations too.

by a_imho 9y ago

kilburn 9y ago

In websites using this technique, consent is not assumed until you keep browsing the website. Hence, the notice cannot be in past tense like yours :P

tzahola 9y ago

Shit, you got me! Post your BTC address please... :(

rbehrends 9y ago

It isn't. If you look at the EU's information about it [1], you must be able to refuse processing of information that's not necessary for the functioning of the site. Virtually no site outside the EU's own ones does that. Ironically, there are some that have them even though the only cookies they use are ones that are necessary for the functioning of the site, and so are exempt. Note that this isn't just about cookies. It's pretty much any information being sent from the user's computer or stored on the user's computer: "Member States shall ensure that the use of electronic communications networks to store information or to gain access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear and comprehensive information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and is offered the right to refuse such processing by the data controller." As far as I can tell, this is mostly because member states capitulated before online advertising exchanges (it's a directive, not a regulation, so it is implemented by member states) and allowed them to work around the clear intent of the directive. [1] http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm

joshuamorton 9y ago
Really this sounds like a situation where they're setting up a system where every actor is in violation, but there's an understanding that you won't be charged, unless someone doesn't like you. That's worrisome when it applies to people, and I'd like to think its worrisome when applied to corporations too.