[AshleysBrain]

I admit to not spending the time to read the actual law text (mainly because it seems so ridiculous), but can't it be worked around using other technologies?

If the law bans cookies, can't sites just switch to using WebStorage/IndexedDB/webkit FileSystem to achieve the same thing, but not using cookies? Thus actual bad guys have a workaround, and the good guys who keep using cookies because they're useful are apparently breaking the law.

Does the cookie law ban other technologies or can we just shift to a new tech not covered by the law?

[stingraycharles]

CTO of an adserving company here. The law states that explicit consent is required for third-party tracking cookies.

The law doesn't specifically say cookies either: it is deliberately vague to mean any data stored on a client's pc. So flash cookies, webstorage, etc all fall under this category. This is due to the law's original intent to fight malware / spyware.

A basic summary of the relevant parts of the law can be found here: http://www.aboutcookies.org/default.aspx?page=3

[rfergie]

No, the law is known as the "cookie law" but it is actually the "E-privacy directive" (or something like that).

It is quite clear that it is the intent rather than the method that is being regulated.

[stordoff]

It covers all such technologies used for the same purpose:

>The law which applies to how you use cookies and similar technologies for storing information on a user’s equipment such as their computer or mobile device changed on 26 May 2011.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/privacy_and_electron...

[chalst]

IIRC from when I read the law last year, no. It talks in terms of stored information, not cookies specifically.