[UnoriginalGuy]

Browsers already have the ability to ask the user if they want to accept a cookie. So all this law did was reproduced browser functionality that has existed all the way back to Netscape.

That all being said however, I'm not entirely sure it is "dead." The current legal standing from my understanding is a grey area...

[kintamanimatt]

No, the law also prohibited use (without permission) of such things as flash cookies and cookie-like things stored in HTML5's web storage, HTTP ETags, IE userData storage, Silverlight isolated storage, etc. The browser has no control over these things, only standard HTTP cookies for which it is responsible.

[lucian1900]

The browser has full control over HTML5 storage.

[samastur]

Yes, but browser's user generally doesn't (in easily accessible way).

[onemorepassword]

No it doesn't.

It's impossible for ordinary users to distinguish between privacy invading tracking cookies and regular functional site cookies.

Also, this doesn't form "informed consent". Users have no idea what the data is used for, and this is the key to this law.

It's not about "cookies", that is just FUD. It's about being able to opt-in to very specific forms of gathering personal data.

Browser functionality is neither opt-in nor informed.

[lucian1900]

At least on Chrome, they are displayed precisely in the same manner as cookies.

[kintamanimatt]

The user doesn't have the same fine-grained control. In the case of HTTP cookies you can control whether session cookies are permitted independently of whether persistent cookies are allowed. I believe no such control exists in the domain of local storage.

[rmc]

The law allows you to use standard browser technology, however the default browser settings do not meet the minimum standards of "actually getting consent from the user".