Report This Ad (full site)
Fark.com

Back To Geek
   Cookie law set to come into force. COOKIE

26 May 2012 07:30 AM   |   2572 clicks   |   BBC-US
Add Comment
Showing 1-19 of 19 comments
Refresh
phlegmmo    [TotalFark]  
Kookie?
www.fiftiesweb.com

/not excessively obscure

26 May 2012 02:04 AM
Reply
LordOfThePings     
Aren't they called biscuits?

26 May 2012 07:31 AM
Reply
Skyfrog     
wiert.files.wordpress.com

26 May 2012 07:41 AM
Reply
Count_0     
phlegmmo: Kookie?
[www.fiftiesweb.com image 150x223]

/not excessively obscure


Lend me your comb.....

26 May 2012 09:13 AM
Reply
Benevolent Misanthrope     
i1214.photobucket.com

26 May 2012 10:32 AM
Reply
BumpInTheNight     
Well, I do hope this helps to curb the nasty habit of some websites where they treat cookies like sql DBs and store practically everything in them.

26 May 2012 10:35 AM
Reply
Mad Tea Party     
3.bp.blogspot.com

26 May 2012 10:50 AM
Reply
itsdan    [TotalFark]  
BumpInTheNight: Well, I do hope this helps to curb the nasty habit of some websites where they treat cookies like sql DBs and store practically everything in them.

So why wouldn't they just store a session id in the cookie and keep everything in an actual sql DB? You know, like practically every site does. The law seems to specifically say data stored IN cookies.

26 May 2012 11:33 AM
Reply
BumpInTheNight     
itsdan: BumpInTheNight: Well, I do hope this helps to curb the nasty habit of some websites where they treat cookies like sql DBs and store practically everything in them.

So why wouldn't they just store a session id in the cookie and keep everything in an actual sql DB? You know, like practically every site does. The law seems to specifically say data stored IN cookies.


Aye and that's indeed the target, some sites just don't get it. I remember reading about a site a while back for instance that kept your phone number in one of their cookies and how another site was harvesting them.

26 May 2012 11:36 AM
Reply
itsdan    [TotalFark]  
BumpInTheNight: Aye and that's indeed the target, some sites just don't get it. I remember reading about a site a while back for instance that kept your phone number in one of their cookies and how another site was harvesting them.

Isn't the browser responsible for not sending cookies from site abc.com to xyz.com? Thought that was fundamental browser security.

26 May 2012 11:46 AM
Reply
BumpInTheNight     
itsdan: BumpInTheNight: Aye and that's indeed the target, some sites just don't get it. I remember reading about a site a while back for instance that kept your phone number in one of their cookies and how another site was harvesting them.

Isn't the browser responsible for not sending cookies from site abc.com to xyz.com? Thought that was fundamental browser security.


Its not supposed to for sure but there's ways to circumvent that using some of the scripting languages or at least there was then, the bigger take-away for me though was the site being targeted had its user's phone numbers in cookies in the first place. Beyond that a chunk of malware could glean quite a bit off of your browser's cookie storage without even having to visit any of the sites its got cookies for.

26 May 2012 11:54 AM
Reply
SCUBA_Archer     
Why would we need a Boogie law to come into force?

26 May 2012 12:45 PM
Reply
BarkingUnicorn    [TotalFark]  
I don't see how a site can be non-compliant with "implied consent" clause added to this regulation.

"The ICO has also updated its policy to allow organisations to use "implied consent" to comply. This means users do not have to make an explicit choice. Instead, their continued use of a site would be taken to mean they are happy for information to be gathered."

Maybe the ICO expects a site to add a sentence to its privacy policy, "By using this site, you give consent to cookies"?

26 May 2012 12:49 PM
Reply
robertus     

26 May 2012 12:57 PM
Reply
ArcadianRefugee     
LordOfThePings: Aren't they called biscuits?

That's a Jaffa cake; it's not a true biscuit.

26 May 2012 01:06 PM
Reply
Mega Steve    [TotalFark]  
ArcadianRefugee: That's a Jaffa cake; it's not a true biscuit.

Jaffa cake?
www.creationent.com

Do they have little worms inside?

26 May 2012 03:22 PM
Reply
djscram     
From TFA:

Fines for non-compliance were unlikely to be levied, he said, because there was little risk that a non-compliant site would cause a serious breach of data protection laws that was likely to cause substantial damage and distress to a user.

Then why have a law???

27 May 2012 07:16 AM
Reply
StoPPeRmobile     
BarkingUnicorn: I don't see how a site can be non-compliant with "implied consent" clause added to this regulation.

"The ICO has also updated its policy to allow organisations to use "implied consent" to comply. This means users do not have to make an explicit choice. Instead, their continued use of a site would be taken to mean they are happy for information to be gathered."

Maybe the ICO expects a site to add a sentence to its privacy policy, "By using this site, you give consent to cookies"?


By using this script, which is on thousands of other sites...

27 May 2012 09:35 AM
Reply
jamspoon     
StoPPeRmobile: Maybe the ICO expects a site to add a sentence to its privacy policy, "By using this site, you give consent to cookies"?

i103.photobucket.com

Or a pop-up message - if you use this site you agree to cookies.

FWIW Instructions on disabling cookies means - Browser settings for all sites

27 May 2012 06:12 PM
Reply
Showing 1-19 of 19 comments
Refresh
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Geek

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party