Cookies!

corbyboy

As a web developer I totally agree with the post above. The people who put together this directive clearly do not understand what cookies do and why they are essential.

Cookies are part of the internal infrastructure of how the internet works. In short, they are essential. You won't be able to login to MSE without them. You can't shop on Amazon without them. You can't use your online banking without them. You can't check your email without them.

The way it has been implemented is farce too. The ICO has been tasked with enforcing it, but they haven't got a clue what they are doing. When people ask for guidance on what to do, they are simply told "we don't know."

A lot of big sites have attempted to meet the requirements of the directive, but as far as I can see no sites have done it correctly. BT's website has been heralded as the ideal way to do it, but their implementation is clearly against the law. As is the BBC. If these guys can't get it right, how can the rest of us?

A._Badger

corbyboy wrote: »

Cookies are part of the internal infrastructure of how the internet works. In short, they are essential.

Amazing how some of us were accessing email and using the Intenet before cookies existed. Or the Web, come to that.

I'm not suggesting we go back to the past (though it had its advantages). Just that the limited understanding of what the Internet actually is doesn't seem to be confined to amateurs.

Kernel_Sanders

Cookies are like bacteria; they have a bad reputation, but most are beneficial.

corbyboy

A._Badger wrote: »

Amazing how some of us were accessing email and using the Intenet before cookies existed. Or the Web, come to that.

I'm not suggesting we go back to the past (though it had its advantages). Just that the limited understanding of what the Internet actually is doesn't seem to be confined to amateurs.

I apologise. I often use the terms Internet and World Wide Web to mean the same thing, when of course they are not.

Sure you can use email applications without the need for cookies. I was referring to web-based email systems. It was perhaps lazy of me to suggest that email as a whole won't work without cookies. I was specifically referring to the process of logging in that won't work without cookies.

Pacman651

I don't have a clue about cookies,

mattduk

A._Badger wrote: »

Or the Web, come to that.

Well, they have been around since 1994 at least. So they are getting close to 20 years old.

Obviously you can use other things apart from web browsers. Its a perfectly good optout route.

Pugwash69

Stupid uninformed nonsense mostly, the new cookie rules.
We personally use only essential cookies to maintain a visitor's session on our web site, so they can add things to a shopping basket and buy them. These are said to be essential and allowed without opting-in by the visitor.

All the other cookies you might encounter are related to our paid advertising on sites such as google. If you block these, I don't know what effect it has but it can't be helpful!

Dave_C_2

Just looked a little closer at this, and it only affects UK web sites.
The first "w" in http://www stands for World, not Westminster. How on earth is this stupid law going to protect us from the invasion of the offshore cookie monster. As others have said cookies are mostly harmless and easy to block.

ETA:
So I have Firefox set to delete cookies when I exit. So now when I log on to a compliant UK website it's an extra mouse click to dismiss the cookie warning notice!
Really well thought out - NOT

Yet another example of the ineffectual and clueless way that the ICO conducts business. In the meantime BT/ phorm get away with mass privacy invasion.

Dave

gallygirl

My understanding was that cookies to help shop, online banking etc were ok with implied consent but not ones re collecting user info for ad serving etc. Interesting if the ICO have 'changed their mind' - I spoke to someone from there who said that they were happy with implied consent but he was being hauled to the EU often to explain why the UK were not implementing/planning on implementing the directive correctly.

I see it in the same way I see my Boots & Tesco card - allowing them access to my info gets me personalised offers & I always find it interesting comparing my offers with other people. If we need advertising to keep the internet free I'd sooner have it remotely relevant (though I wish the dating site on Hotmail would realise I was only looking at my daughter's matches and I'm really not interested, lovely as some of the young men appear to be :rotfl:).

yangptangkipperbang

corbyboy wrote: »

As a web developer I totally agree with the post above. The people who put together this directive clearly do not understand what cookies do and why they are essential.

Cookies are NOT essential ! They [STRIKE]are[/STRIKE] were a useful addition to the web BUT have now become little more than a pain in the posterior. There original purpose has been hijacked for a number of purposes - mainly advertising.
I would expect a "web developer" to say they essential - just like the man from BG always says your CH needs a power flush or a new boiler :D

Set your system to accept only cookies from the site you visit, NO 3rd party cookies and auto clear ALL cookies on logging out - you will be amazed at the difference.............