Why are we conforming to the new cookie legislation?

[borgs8472]

This is a mix of a technical and political question, just why are we conforming to the cookie legislation?



I didn't see public discussion on the matter, nor an announcement when this feature was added to the website (about ~1 month ago AFAIK)

As I have brought up previously, the law has been passed without thought of the technical implication consequences, from the multinational nature of websites, the fact that illegitimate websites will not follow these guidelines and generally the user experience impact on many websites is greatly detrimental.

This is before we even touch on the ability of end users to truly give informed consent about what is typically perceived as a technical, not privacy issue.

I expect a response could be made to these points that would refute these issues substantially and I'm interested in hearing it. However my biggest issue is this, the internet is a new paradigm of freedom of expression, information exchange and legal regulation.

I, and I thought the party sees digital piracy as a feature of this new landscape, not something that either can or should be suppressed. Now advertisers profiling (often cross site) user data through use of cookies is not something I consider something that can be suppressed, even if it would be nice for the privacy conscious if it could.

I actually spoke at my previous company (advertising), to ignore this legislation, which by and large it has, along with most other sites on the internet, suggesting that I was capable of moving effected site hosting off shore if that was what it took.

Not only do I feel we should not be complying with this cookie laws, I believe we should be actively campaigning against them as a part of a broader anti government led internet regulation platform.

[azrael]

A law was passed about being transparent and open with users. We are required to comply with the law, so we are. We might want to *change* a law, but I am not sure our normal approach is to deliberately and publicly flout the laws we don't like.

Being open and transparent with users doesn't really go against our political philosophy (even if it does relate to perhaps a rather silly and unnecessary level of openness?).

Your previous company really ought to obtain legal advice on whether wilfully ignoring this law is a good approach for them.

[borgs8472]

A law was passed about being transparent and open with users.

I would argue a law was passed to try apply existing data protection legislation more consistently with that of internet cookies. The technical implementation and communications were very much an afterthought - so no.

We are required to comply with the law, so we are.

Since there was no announcement about what cookies we might be opting in to I've not seen what change has been necessary. For example, the home page sets:
* Confirm cookie policy (new)
and
* Session id - something that would fall under an exception, not requiring opt in as it's functional component of the website
* Functional forum cookies

Going beyond our domain, there is:
* Youtube cookie

Presumably other external embedded media might also use/set cookies. I will accept one could argue that youtube needs a disclaimer, just like our use of google analytics do, but I believe the user experience impact is net negative.

I accept if we wanted to support this law actively it would be the thing to do - but I disagree.

Being open and transparent with users doesn't really go against our political philosophy (even if it does relate to perhaps a rather silly and unnecessary level of openness?).

I will accept it is not in itself negative, other than that of a minor user experience issue - but our implied support of the law is more serious, which is what I'm raising.

Your previous company really ought to obtain legal advice on whether wilfully ignoring this law is a good approach for them.

The company was an agency and therefore not liable for the sites contents, it was the brands they advertised for who bear the liability. All brands were canvassed and quoted for the work necessary to audit and update their sites cookies and policies. Some paid and got annoying 'opt in' screens, most accepted the risk of non-compliance due to reasons of:
* No budget to update their sites - and no tangible financial risk for not doing so to weigh this against
* Understanding of the common place use of cookies on the internet and that the ICO guidelines were impractical
* Non UK brands hosted in the UK who were prepared to move their hosting offshore if needs be

There were internal divisions at the time, with the head of data parroting the ICO's 'everyone without cookie opt in will be fined by the ICO!' through to me saying 'this is a waste of time'. I have been proven correct so far, and I stand by my position that this is an ineffective, confusing law, that is more about a government legal bureaucrats being seen to be active, attempting to delegate a complex issue down to individual users, than it is securing internet users privacy or encouraging website transparency.

[azrael]

Perhaps we could add a one liner... "Please do not regard our compliance with any law as any implied support for that law."

[borgs8472]

I'd be happy with that if that reflected our policies - but I'm using this issue to force a policy stance first of all, then any such message should reflect and even link to any final policy we agree on.

[aramoro]

I'd be happy with that if that reflected our policies - but I'm using this issue to force a policy stance first of all, then any such message should reflect and even link to any final policy we agree on.

You're not allowed to link to pirated content on this forum, why would you violate any other law. Seems pointless.

[borgs8472]

No, that issue is currently up in the air.

[aramoro]

No, that issue is currently up in the air.

Is it actually actively being discussed or is it just up in the air because you want it to be? If it is then it'll be pretty cool to have the Pirate Party Website for tv download link, I usually use http://www.eztv.it but this was we can have a forum to discuss the shows as well.

[tuoni]

I usually use http://www.eztv.it but this was we can have a forum to discuss the shows as well.

Is that where you get this "game of thrones" programme you seem so obsessed with?

[aramoro]

I usually use http://www.eztv.it but this was we can have a forum to discuss the shows as well.

Is that where you get this "game of thrones" programme you seem so obsessed with?

I didn't bring up downloading Game of Thrones, that was Phil Hunt (cabalmat), one of your candidates, in your recent ACTA Promo video. I brought up The Killing which seems middle class enough for everyone here to reference.

[lostsparrow]

While the whole thing seems to be based on misunderstandings and/or blowing things out of proportion, the warnings are intrusive and useless and the organization seems to have no interested or ability to enforce it.. there is a good aspect of the policy: That websites should clearly explain what the cookies they write contain and why. Look here for example http://www.nhs.uk/aboutNHSChoices/about ... olicy.aspx It's excellent. There are so many pressing issues regarding privacy on the web (especially server side things like logging people web accesses), it's quite odd that they've fixated on cookies which you can just switch off if you like (I recommend just whitelisting websites that you want to store cookies, you're in control..).