>There was absolutely nothing wrong with the cookie law. Really? The cookie law, however well-intentioned, could never have been useful. The simplest reason fo

>There was absolutely nothing wrong with the cookie law. Really? The cookie law, however well-intentioned, could never have been useful. The simplest reason for this is that you can never know if a site is not complying with the cookie law or simply doesn't set cookies. The only way to be certain of this was to use the already existing browser mechanisms for dealing with cookies. In other words, the cookie law would never have done anything even if companies handled it exactly as intended. Implementing the cookie law costs money and time. It costs developer money and time, and it costs the time of consumers, because some developers are always going to get it wrong simply by virtue of not knowing everything about the law or how to handle it. They will hear about it from third parties and not know how to handle it and simply follow the first steps that tells them how to handle it. The way the cookie law went should have been expected. It shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone that it didn't do anything and it simply wasted people's time and money. >This law doesn't 'actually suck', but it can be made to 'actually suck' and then we all lose something of value. Then we're pretty much guaranteed to all lose something of value. In IT you should expect things to go wrong and for people to abuse the system. Because inevitably that's going to happen.