Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)
by andyhmltn on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @04:25AM
(#6018113)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the UK's law? If it was, they seemed to backtrack on it and say that it's fine as long as you mention it in your site's TOS
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)
by rmc on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @05:24AM
(#6018322)
It was an EU wide law. Each country implemented EU in similar but different ways.
Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)
by reidrac on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @06:34AM
(#6018514)
It is a EU Directive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)
AFAIK the EU dictates the result, not the means. UK's first implementation of the e-Privacy Directive was unfortunate, but I don't think it means the directive was a bad idea.
Re:Why HTTP/2.0 does not seem interesting (2012)
by rmc on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @11:10AM
(#6020224)
An "EU Directive" is a law, it's decided on in the same democratic manner that (say) UK laws are decided on. It's like how in the UK there are "Acts of Parliament" (i.e. laws).
It's up to individual countries to implement the minimum, and likewise, each country will implement each one slightly different. The UK law and the EU Directive are basically the same, "It's illegal to do X, Y and Z unless you do W etc." There isn't really a mean/results differnce here.