New net rules set to make cookies crumble
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
HN discussion: (36 comments) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1082464
Does anyone know of a firefox addon (or for another browser) that 'homogenizes' the info sent to sites?
I am speechless beyond words about this total lack of imagination. So the only ebusinesses endorsed by the government are shopping sites?
Thinking about it, this will probably just strenghten Facebook. Facebook will hide a "consent checkbox" somewhere in their intractable pricavy settings. Then all sites that use Facebook authentication are good to go.
I suppose Facebook might even be able to provide some sort of server side cookie service. Perhaps it could be a JavaScript from Facebook that reads the Facebook cookie from Facebook and sends a hash value to the server. The server can then ask Facebook for the identity. Or something like that.
The BBC's technology reporting veers wildly between the patronising, the embarrassing, and the just plain wrong. I think this is a stab at the former.
Facebook is my last choice for signing into a site, as they give the site access to more data then is needed.
"Specifically excluded by the directive are cookies that log what people have put in online shopping baskets."
"Exceptions to the obligation to provide information and offer the right to refuse should be limited to those situations where the technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user."
I would take this to mean that session cookies, shopping cart cookies and wotnot are exempted. But I'm a coder, not a lawyer, so pinch of salt 'n all that.
Edit: in fact reading it more closely, it would appear that this statement merely places a restriction on exemptions that individual nations implementing the Directive might carve out. If they make exceptions, they must be limited to the situations described, but they don't have to exempt all such uses. Which is a less-than-comforting thought.
Third parties may wish to store information on the equip ment of a user, or gain access to information already stored, for a number of purposes, ranging from the legiti mate (such as certain types of cookies) to those involving unwarranted intrusion into the private sphere (such as spy ware or viruses). It is therefore of paramount importance that users be provided with clear and comprehensive infor mation when engaging in any activity which could result in such storage or gaining of access. The methods of pro viding information and offering the right to refuse should be as user-friendly as possible. Exceptions to the obligation to provide information and offer the right to refuse should be limited to those situations where the technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user. Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user’s consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application. The enforcement of these require ments should be made more effective by way of enhanced powers granted to the relevant national authorities.
(apologies for linebreaks, PDF copy/paste fail)
This isn't nearly as bad as what the BBC are saying. In fact this seems perfectly reasonable.