No more cookies?

[PlexRep]

Hi Guys n gals,

It seems new laws are in the works to make all our lives just that little bit harder

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12668552

For webmasters this means an uphill struggle in targeting your campaigns effectively, and for players it likely means a lot more pop ups asking them to allow the site to gather info.

Can anyone explain the logic of this one to me?

[baldidiot]

It sounds like a P.I.T.A.

[vinylweatherman]

Hi Guys n gals,

It seems new laws are in the works to make all our lives just that little bit harder

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12668552

For webmasters this means an uphill struggle in targeting your campaigns effectively, and for players it likely means a lot more pop ups asking them to allow the site to gather info.

Can anyone explain the logic of this one to me?

I think the problem is down to the MIS-use of cookies, and a growing concern that "somehow" our private details seem to keep on ending up in places we NEVER gave permission for. Now it seems we have something of an OVER-reaction, since the changes seem to do MORE than is needed by the aims stated.

The problem seems to be that every time users make changes to protect their privacy, the big marketing firms introduce ever more sophisticated means to neuter the measures taken by users, and the downloading of "malware" without consent is a growing problem. Most "malware" comes from the online advertising industry, and is a means to bypass many of the browser based controls.

Although aimed at curbing the excesses of the advertising industry, casino & poker operators could find they have a BIG problem, as the new law could make many of the measures used to combat fraud through tracking & profiling ILLEGAL, since they involve planting a file on a users PC when they register their account, which is then used to uniquely identify that PC, and catch out attempts to create additional accounts using different details.

There are already tools around that savvy users can use to protect their privacy, but this requires the user to know where to look, and how to use them. The new law would place this burden on the software suppliers, meaning full protection is the default, with users having to opt IN, rather than opt out, of tracking.

Unfortunately, this law ONLY applies in the EU, and unless ALL countries introduce similar laws, websites can still choose not to comply simply by moving their websites to servers in countries without such laws. This could even lull users into a false sense of security, since they will believe the law now protects them, and so they no longer need the protection of anti-malware products.

Now we need some laws that are EFFECTIVE at stopping spam. There are already laws that make spam illegal, but if anything, the problem is WORSE.

This new law will not be much better unless it can be enforced, and against EVERY website, wherever it is located.

[jstrike]

LOL. This from the country with more CCTV cameras than North Korea ever dreamed of, where they're passing laws saying you can't stand at the bar, can't have more than three drinks, must be abusing your children if your clothes smell like cigarette smoke...where men in silly-looking day glow uniforms get to go around pretending to be police and handing out fines for "antisocial behavior"...and they want to tell web operators the world over to rewrite our code for their citizens in the name of privacy? Now I've heard everything.

What they don't realize is that this will make it a lot harder for them to recover passwords when they want to spy on their citizens. That should give them pause...

[jetset]

Since when were nanny-state politicians and bureaucrats logical

[lots0]

All over the world, the web is fast becoming a political toilet.

[BingoT]

All over the world, the web is fast becoming a political toilet.

I'll Flush to that.

[vinylweatherman]

LOL. This from the country with more CCTV cameras than North Korea ever dreamed of, where they're passing laws saying you can't stand at the bar, can't have more than three drinks, must be abusing your children if your clothes smell like cigarette smoke...where men in silly-looking day glow uniforms get to go around pretending to be police and handing out fines for "antisocial behavior"...and they want to tell web operators the world over to rewrite our code for their citizens in the name of privacy? Now I've heard everything.

What they don't realize is that this will make it a lot harder for them to recover passwords when they want to spy on their citizens. That should give them pause...

Maybe not. This is all done by MI5, who do NOT have to obey these laws.

Maybe they ARE being logical. At the moment, there is an "arms race" between the malware & advertising industry, and the producers of privacy protection and security software. Those who do NOT want "the Government" spying on them will have the BEST security software they can get, and this makes it almost impossible for anyone to spy on them. Laws such as this would remove the need for users to secure their own privacy, because the law will do it for them. This will make it EASIER for the likes of MI5 to spy on some "high risk" computer targets.

Some users will NOT trust the law in any case, and will STILL implement their own measures, however the reduced demand will mean that the spying industry used by the Government will have a chance to outwit the protection software, since the companies producing it will no longer make as much money from selling it.

Oddly enough, it has been GOVERNMENT computers that have been the EASIEST to hack, and the GOVERNMENT who have "lost" the most amount of sensitive data.

This law will probably grind to a halt, because it will make the internet far LESS user friendly, and users will complain that the law has made things WORSE for them, not better. There is also the matter of implementation and enforcement, and this could turn out to be very expensive, as well as almost impossible. They can't even enforce the CURRENT laws that are supposed to govern the internet.

[jstrike]

Interesting perspective, VW. I hadn't thought about the long-term implications for the PC-security industry. Of course, security firms would only suffer if this law were actually effective in keeping most users safe from malware. Since porn sites and rogue casinos won't comply with it, and those are the most likely to plant malware in the first place, it's hard to see it being effective... but if it goes into effect, the big companies like Google will need to comply with it.

So say the government's not going after some mastermind terrorist, but just a garden-variety drug dealer who uses Gmail or Hotmail to send out times and places to his associates. Right now, the gov't doesn't have to subpoena Google or Microsoft for the guy's login credentials to use his emails in court. They can just get a warrant to seize his laptop, and more likely than not he's got cookies on there that will get them into his account. Once this law's in place, if I understand it correctly, those cookies will be opt-in. And even your average crack dealer is smart enough to not opt in for something like that. I'd bet this law makes it harder to convict in 90% of cases involving PCs as evidence, even if it does eventually give intelligence services a small amount of room to catch up with the dumber terrorists under your scenario.

Also, I don't know if you ever caught this article:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/do-antivirus...-339280165.htm
but the government's already got deals with the security firms which force them to ignore government spyware during virus checks. So it's questionable whether the collapse of firms like McAfee would really help the gov'ts cause; right now they seem to be in the ideal position for spying on us already.