undefined | Better HN

0 pointsslrz7y ago0 comments

> The example of the cookie law (for which it's hard to argue that it has not utterly failed) should act as a bad precedent, not a good one.

It is an utter failure but mostly because services try hard to turn it into a travesty and simultaneously manage to deceive their users by attributing blame for the annoying cookie warnings to regulators.

"We are required by law to show you this stupid warning because our site uses advanced features that need cookies to work. Without them, you couldn't even login! (OK)"

Which, of course, is utter bullshit. If you can stop this deception, things might actually work out as intended. Sites may rethink their need for personal data gathering if cookie warnings would have to look more like the following.

"We'd like to analyze your site usage for ad targeting and other things that make us some more money.

Do you agree we use cookies for that? (yes/no)

NOTE: Even if you disagree, standard site functionality like logins will continue to work unharmed."

0 comments

aembleton7y ago

But how would you handle logins without cookies? How would you know that a customer has already agreed not to allow cookies without a cookie?

slrzOP7y ago

I don't think you need to get explicit agreement when using cookies to implement expected site functionality, as long as you don't use re-purpose them for profiling/targeting purposes. IANAL, though.

See: http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm#se... (starting at "Howewer, some cookies are exempt …")

zerostar077y ago

If a law can be so easily circumvented, does not provide an alternate solution and fails to effect any change at all, then it's a failed law and a bad law, regardless of good intentions.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse