[onemorepassword]

This entire argument boils down to "if you don't want to get raped, don't wear short skirts in public".

People shouldn't have to take protective action in order to not get stalked by advertisers and marketers.

Such activities require opt-in and informed consent, and standard browser functionality doesn't even come close to supporting that.

Oh, I agree that the current law doesn't solve the problem.

But "educating the people" is a completely backward solution. The opaque stalking of people by the likes of Facebook and Google should be outlawed completely, and heavily enforced.

[jules]

> This entire argument boils down to "if you don't want to get raped, don't wear short skirts in public".

This is a ridiculous comparison. Lets not go that way.

> Such activities require opt-in and informed consent, and standard browser functionality doesn't even come close to supporting that.

Yes, as I said that's where the problem lies, so that's what should be altered. This can either be done by education, or by making the browser more resilient (e.g. let the browser do opt-in for all cookies or at least cookies sent via stuff embedded in other web pages like Google analytics and Facebook like buttons). The current solution of forcing Dutch websites to display popups is a farce as I explained because (A) it doesn't actually protect your privacy in any meaningful way (B) it's annoying. By giving a false sense of privacy it actually makes the problem worse.

Privacy laws should be about protecting privacy in general, not about a specific technology like cookies. There are plenty of genuine applications of cookies (keeping you logged in to HN for example), and there are plenty of ways for Facebook to track you without using cookies that they would happily switch to if this law applied to them (but note that those methods cannot be used to keep you logged in to HN because they are not secure so that might give somebody else access to your account -- but Facebook doesn't care about 100% reliability for tracking purposes, 99% is enough).

[onemorepassword]

Again with the disinformation.

First, the law doesn't force websites to display popups, the law forces informed consent.

The pop-ups are hack on top of existing sites which I agree quite clearly doesn't work. Also, there has been a clear failure by those enforcing the law in constructively thinking about the way in which such consent should be given.

Second, the law is very explicitly not about cookies nor any kind of specific form of technology. It's about invasive tracking, and other applications of cookies are in no way affected by the law. If Facebook finds a way to track people without cookies, it will still be covered by the law. The misleading name "cookie-law" is product of the anti-privacy lobby.

The law in it's current form may not have the desired result, but please stop pretending it's law created by ignorant politicians that don't understand cookies, because that is simply untrue, and it poisons any constructive debate just as much as my admittedly over the top comparison.

[mnarayan01]

   This entire argument boils down to "if you don't want to get raped, don't wear short skirts in public".

That's a pretty spot-on analogy and I, for one, am impressed by the depth and nuance you've bought to this discussion.

[onemorepassword]

The point of the analogy is "blaming the victim", which imho is spot-on.

But yeah, I could have chosen more tasteful and less over the top comparison. My apologies.