Re:Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
by Eldarrion on Friday May 19, 2017 @06:09PM
(#14379709)
> You are, however, completely right that it is stupid beyond ridicule that you technically can't store the fact that a user doesn't want cookies on the browser.
Yes you can, it's pretty simple to do. Add a timestamped entry into your database to not show that notification to the IP address the user comes from, then run a script every minute that clears out entries older than an hour. Granted, if you go back to the website an hour later, it would still pop up the request to access cookies but it certainly beats having it pop up on every page load.
Re:Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
by detaro on Friday May 19, 2017 @04:20PM
(#14379018)
Not all information, only those that are not strictly necessary to provide the service (so e.g. a basic session cookie created once a user logs in or starts using the shopping cart, ... should not require consent)
Re:Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
by slau on Friday May 19, 2017 @05:49PM
(#14379599)
Interesting, wasn't aware of that distinction. As it turns out, there's quite a few exceptions[1]. Thanks for correcting me!
[1]: http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm#se...
A number of websites formulate this as "By continuing to use this website, you agree that we will access your cookies," accompanied with a "Dismiss" button, but that's not really what the spirit of the law is.
DNT didn't change anything to this, as it was meant for a completely different use. I'd even say using DNT for this is a complete hack, which sort of misses the point of both the cookie law and DNT. You are, however, completely right that it is stupid beyond ridicule that you technically can't store the fact that a user doesn't want cookies on the browser.
Edit: paragraph formatting.