Cookies accept or decline Bar

[ApacheTech]

That one was linked on the first page of this thread. The video on that link gives you a better insight into what's happening. He also explains in the video that it's set up more as a "task-force for better practice" than a hard done law. They won't have much power of punishment. They will pretty much only be able to "rehabilitate" offenders back into the web community. I think if this really wants to get off the ground though that they should be educating the users first and foremost. As soon as a massive surge of people start complaining that this cookie's doing that and so on, this bill will take flight. Until then, it's just flat.

[bernie1227]

That one was linked on the first page of this thread. The video on that link gives you a better insight into what's happening. He also explains in the video that it's set up more as a "task-force for better practice" than a hard done law. They won't have much power of punishment. They will pretty much only be able to "rehabilitate" offenders back into the web community. I think if this really wants to get off the ground though that they should be educating the users first and foremost. As soon as a massive surge of people start complaining that this cookie's doing that and so on, this bill will take flight. Until then, it's just flat.

thanks for the link apache, the problem with all these kinds of things are the real amount of power legislation has over the internet. The only real, big hit effect on any internet site by real world legislation was the FBI taking down megaupload. Honestly, i'm not sure how much 'rehabilitating' would help.

[ApacheTech]

This is less about Net Neutrality and more about good business practices. This isn't targeting the unscrupulous companies that do bad, it's about creating a level playing field for all and giving some form of legal precedent to punish companies who abuse the weakest link in any security chain; human stupidity.

[bernie1227]

This is less about Net Neutrality and more about good business practices. This isn't targeting the unscrupulous companies that do bad, it's about creating a level playing field for all and giving some form of legal precedent to punish companies who abuse the weakest link in any security chain; human stupidity.

my point is though, the punishment won't work

[jscheuer1]

I've never been keen on Chrome. I like menu bars. I installed Chrome once, saw it had no menu bars and that you couldn't add menu bars at all and promptly uninstalled it and since then I've pretty much forgot it existed. I'll only ever use Chrome if they have an option to turn the standard look menu bars on.

I felt the same way at first. However, I see it as part of my mission to test in the most commonly used browsers. As a result, over time, I've come to appreciate Chrome's speed, stability, and even its versitility from a developer's point of view. Sure menus are lacking, but everything you ever wanted them for and more is still available and easy to access once you get used to how.

From the stats I linked to in my previous post it seems that a large number of users either don't miss all that 'under the hood' type of thing that traditional menus offer a gateway to, or find it easily enough when they want it. (Hint: Click on the little wrench icon in the upper right corner.)

Also, for more direct access to numerous high level info/settings screens there are shortcuts like:

chrome://plugins

that may be typed directly into the address bar.

As a case study of how to manage this law on an enterprise level, I've been looking into the BBC. They have a comprehensive policy on cookies at http://www.bbc.co.uk/privacy/ which includes a Cookie Settings page where you can enable or disable some of the cookies, part from the essential ones and gives a full detailed list of what everything does. I'm friends with one of the BBC R&D team in Manchester who's also big in the hacker community up here; they've been doing a lot of work to spearhead various ways of educating the average internet user on what goes on behind the scenes.

The main consensus seems to be: Have the info available for those who want to read it. Don't bombard people with technical jargon straight away, instead, give links for further information which goes into more detail and the technicalities of it all. For those who don't want any information, don't ram it down their throats; just make sure things work for the de facto default browser settings and let them be. Basically, "everything ON as standard".

The BBC has taken a logical and thorough approach here. However, allowing users that much control requires the level of programming that I referred to in my previous post. Each time the BBC's cookie setting code starts to execute for any single cookie, it must consult the saved user preferences in order to know whether or not it's allowed to set that particular cookie.

If all cookies are set via a master routine for the site, this isn't too onerous. But it requires a level of organization, a unified approach to setting cookies, that's unusual in most web site's. And that can be hard for a site administrator to set up if the site already has many and varied scripts with individual cookie routines.

[bernie1227]

I've never been keen on Chrome. I like menu bars. I installed Chrome once, saw it had no menu bars and that you couldn't add menu bars at all and promptly uninstalled it and since then I've pretty much forgot it existed. I'll only ever use Chrome if they have an option to turn the standard look menu bars on.

I like chrome, it's fast and it has good developer tools and customisation.