So in other words googles advertising should suddenly tart paying out a bit more as they’ll no longer be able to target adverts… either that or they’ll just start paying a lot less.
The BBC is the only news corporation in the world funded by a state, and independent of any political views (technically). I agree they do lean slightly one way or the other at times, but far FAR less than any other news corporation (especially American ones). I’m very wary about the media in general, but the BBC is something to be celebrated as far as I’m concerned, absolutely top quality news, and TV in general.
Yes… or that sites will ask users “is it ok for google to give you a cookie?” or the googles will try some other tack.
This is a bit of scare-mongering, but I like the explanation anyway: http://donttrack.us
the first part about 3rd-party ads. Though I’m thinking Facebook is one of the worst offenders when it comes to 3rd-party tracking and information gathering.
Please excuse this small diversion. From today’s New York Times:
… A bill introduced by State Senator Jim Norman of Florida would make it a felony to take a picture of a farm without the owner’s permission:
[I]A person who photographs, video records or otherwise produces images or pictorial records, digital or otherwise, at or of a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture operations are being conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner, commits a felony of the first degree.
[/I]
The bill, S.B. 1246, was introduced on Tuesday…
Google will be in for a big shock if that particular piece of lunacy gets passed.
(Shows that it isn’t just the Europeans who have nutters in their legislature.
)
colinmcc:
got a link? (ok likely we’d have to pay for it but…)
Also: there’s a good reason for that law. It’s to stop people from showing average consumers how their food is made. Basically to stop films like Food, Inc from being made.
In the US, if I recall correctly, someone convicted as a first-degree felon can’t vote ever again, right? shiver
Yeah, that sounds like a worrying law if passed.
There’s a browser setting that makes sites have to do that. Is the legislation going to require everyone using a browser in the EU to turn on that setting?
The only way an adversising service could ask the question itself is if the web site displaying the ad runs JavaScript from the ad site. Will the legislation require that everyone in the EU use a browser that supports JavaScript and has it enabled so that the advertisers are able to ask?
Then there are the advertising sites where there is no JavaScript involved and everything is done using server side code. Are these sites going to be forced to change the way their ads work to use JavaScript (which everyone will be required to turn on so as to see the ads that are currently visible without JavaScript)?
Without requiring all browser owners to change their browser settings to either ask about third party cookies or to turn on JavaScript, there is no way that site owners could comply since all the control is with the person who owns the browser.
There’s a browser setting that makes sites have to do that. Is the legislation going to require everyone using a browser in the EU to turn on that setting?
There is mention of browser settings possibly being good enough to satisfy demands. I’m not sure how the site would “know” this though. Still, the onus will never be on the users with their browsers; it will be on those offering the cookies (I’d say, the sites carrying the 3rd-party ads).
The only way an adversising service could ask the question itself is if the web site displaying the ad runs JavaScript from the ad site. Will the legislation require that everyone in the EU use a browser that supports JavaScript and has it enabled so that the advertisers are able to ask?
Sounds more likely the site carrying the advertising will have to deal with the alerting of users that there are 3rd-party cookies, for that reason. After all, they’re the ones who included them. How they are supposed to do this will have to be hashed out by legislators in individual countries.
The Netherlands will not require JS, because the Stichting ICTU has people who know better (they have heard of WCAG). These questions about “will the legislation” are wholly and entirely the question of individual country’s legislation, and the real fear is that that may vary horribly.
Then there are the advertising sites where there is no JavaScript involved and everything is done using server side code. Are these sites going to be forced to change the way their ads work to use JavaScript (which everyone will be required to turn on so as to see the ads that are currently visible without JavaScript)?
I see very few advertisements, surfing with JS off, so I assume the majority of ads are served via JS. I don’t see why those using plain ads would need to switch to JS?? Form submission with a yes-no question, new content added to the page by the server. ? (you know more about this stuff than I do, so it’s a serious question)
I’m curious about sites like DeviantArt. I need to allow scripts from I swear like 40 freaking servers just to see any individual piece of art. wtf. I assume some of them simply store the art, but the rest? Dunno.
It looks like the big guys are trying to anticipate the new law:
Google, Yahoo and Microsoft sign up to cookie code - IT News from V3.co.uk
The ICO has finally published some advice on how businesses operating within the EU can handle the new “Cookie Law”.
To cut a long story short, if you are attempting to store any cookie on a users web page then you need them to alert them to this action and ask them to opt into this use. This is an attack on tracking cookies storing information on users, and apparently should not affect cookies that are used to transfer data across a site (i.e. from shopping cart to checkout).
So, how are you guys and girls looking to adhere to this new law?
The dutch House of Commons is going to vote tomorrow (dutch newspaper article).
According to the article (which of course might be completely wrong, since journalists also don’t know anything about IT), users will have to give explicit consent for each single cookie through a popup message.
If you want to know what that would be like, check this out (click alert 
)
Oh jeez, I do quite a bit of surfing with Lynx, and the default for that browser is to ask for every single cookie (you can change it, but I’m lazy). It’s ok for sites with a few cookies. It’s really horrible for sites with like 40 of them. My y key starts heating up.
You see mention of filtering vs Net Neutrality… which I don’t think any of these people have any idea what that actually means. In fact, I wonder how many of them know what a browser is?
[ot]Oh c’mon, de Telegraaf??
Volkskrant[/ot]
Off Topic:
In Holland I always read (past tense) the Volkskrant, but I don’t like the Volkskrant online.
Off Topic:
I think it’s more my bias against a paper who I see as practically a tabloid, publishing fear and sensation and drama for a public who cares little about real issues or real knowledge… so I wanted to send a little traffic over to, really, ANY concurrent (Volkskrant just came up first in DDG results… good enough!).