Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Lornedon 1099 days ago
Yes, I may be overly pendantic. This part just made me suspect that the author didn't have a technological background. That isn't bad per se, as this is mostly a legal topic.

Also, I'm not trying to "maliciously take these laws literally". The law isn't limited to cookies, so you can't get around it by using a narrow definition of the word "cookie".
2 comments
lucb1e 1099 days ago
Nothing in the text makes me think the authors do or do not have a technical background. Everything sounds correct both technically and legally to me (me being a technical person and not a lawyer).
link
tredre3 1098 days ago
> This part just made me suspect that the author didn't have a technological background.

Or perhaps the author does have a technical background, which is why they attempted to give a clear yet simple explanation for the non-technical?

People hear cookies are bad, they get pestered by cookie banners, so it makes sense to use cookie as an umbrella term. Their definition of tracking matches the law which is the important part.

link