[gioele]

To all the people bashing the EU e-Privacy directive [1] (the "cookie law"): have you bothered read it all?

If so, could you please pin-point which part of the directive you do not like? Which part are hard to implement? Can you also explain us (with the same verve used to bash the directive) how your national implementation is even worse than the EU-wide directive?

The directive is quite short, definitely shorter than a review of a new Mac OS X release. Give it a try.

Spoiler: the word "cookie" is not used in the law, only in the explanatory preamble.

[1] latest consolidated version of the EU e-Privacy directive http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLE...

[daleharvey]

That part where half the websites I use started giving me popups asking if I accept cookies before I could use the site was the part that I did not like.

[ppod]

This part:

>Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose.

Could certainly be interpreted to mean that users must actively accept or refuse cookies before accessing a website. I don't like this because the inconvenience outweighs the privacy benefits, in my opinion.

[gioele]

That part is not part of the law, just introductory text. The law says in Article 5:

«3. Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia, about the purposes of the processing.

This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service.»

A site can store data on a person's computer only if that person has give its consent to it or if it is technically needed. Your ad campaigns, your A/B tests, your detailed analytics are not technically needed and I want to have a say on whether they are going to be stored in my computer.

Please note that many national implementation explicitly allow for broad mechanism like "accept all cookies" buttons during installations as long they are set or clicked by the user and are not simple defaults.

[ppod]

Whether it is in the recital or the enacting terms is irrelevant, I quoted the recital because it is a little clearer.

The effect is the same - sites have interpreted the law to mean that a pop-up prompt is necessary. I think that the inconvenience of this outweighs the benefit. You might disagree, but don't try to make it sound as if everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

[yaix]

Welcome to the world of EU bashing. People usually never read anything that comes from Brussels, but love to complain about it. Unfortunately, that is especially true for British media.

[jerf]

Welcome to the world of $LARGE_ORGANIZATION bashing. People usually never read anything that comes from $LARGE_ORGANIZATION, but love to complain about it. Unfortunately, that is especially true for $EVERYONE.

(Sorry. Excessively-specific adjectives are a bit of a pet peeve of mine.)

[yaix]

Just read European newspapers and the justifications of politicians in Europe when they want to implement some unpopular policy.

Its not uncommon that a political party introduces a policy first on the EU level (say, in the Commission) and then complain about it later that the "EU forces them" to implement it on a national level (even though it was that same party that promoted it in Europe). Its the easiest way for politicians to blame unpopular but necessary policies on somebody else.

[ppod]

Aren't those nouns?

[jerf]

In this case, sure. I mentally think of it as the excessively-specific adjective problem, because usually I'm wanting to replace "British media" with "media" or something. This shot right off the adjectives entirely. (This is explanation, not defense, BTW; you are entirely correct.)

[mikeash]

I would call it a problem of excessive specificity in general, where specifying adjectives is an example of it!

[jerf]

I stand corrected.

[jeremyjh]

Proper nouns at that.

[DeepDuh]

You do like shell script, don't you? ;)

[zalew]

> To all the people bashing the EU e-Privacy directive [1] (the "cookie law"): have you bothered read it all?

I haven't read it, but I guess the BBC guys had http://i.imgur.com/b0CYo.png