[stingraycharles]

We all know how broad "intended usage" can be defined. Google has a cookie that is required for logging in into gmail (clearly intended usage), but is reusing that exact same cookie for tracking purposes.

Until there is actual legal precedence after people sueing businesses abusing these abilities, I have no idea how to interpret these laws other than "they are very broad and vague".

[boracay]

I don't think the laws are vague so much as how we use cookies today. With different mechanisms for different purposes it would (could) be much more transparent to the end users how things work. It would be more like the "save password" feature in various browsers. Of course since all the major browsers vendors also make money from ads this isn't really in their interest.