[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Cookies policy of Manchester City Council's websit
Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Cookies policy of Manchester City Council's website
Tue, 22 Oct 2013 11:01:56 +0100
Many thanks for your very helpful and informative feedback, all! I now
have a better idea about what cookies is about.
While I appreciate that Mcr city council needs to address EU's
mandate, which IMHO is not necessarily a bad regulation from a
perspective of awareness-raising and acquiring informed consent, Mcr
City Council's website still appears to be unfriendly to me, from the
usability perspective. I would have liked the pop-up notice to be
worded in a less strict tone. That would have achieved its educational
as well as technical goals better, I think. Perhaps they should take
the content from this thread and season it with some humour...
On 22 October 2013 08:44, Simon Ward <address@hidden> wrote:
> Michael Dorrington <address@hidden> wrote:
>>There is also the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) page on the
>>matter (which tries to set a cookie on visiting it without asking with
>>the helpful footer of "We have placed cookies on your computer to help
>>make this website better. You can change your cookie settings at any
>>time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.".
> This is fine. Browsers are much better placed to provide a user interface for
> accepting and rejecting cookies, and they can do it regardless of the web
> site you visit. It is a bad assumption that every site will ask you if you
> want to set cookies.
> From the ICO's point of view, the EU directive was to increase the awareness
> updated it as it decided the objective was met.
>>Looking at the articles, Manchester City Council is probably not
>>breaking the law, or at least any law that is being enforced, when
>>cookies for a web form. However, there are alternative methods to
>>cookies for this, as described in the Wikipedia article above in the
>>"Alternatives to cookies" section.
> Cookies are not inherently evil. They are just parts of the HTTP request and
> response, the same as any other header or the data of the web site. The
> difference is that a representation of the cookie is stored on your computer,
> and that your browser could send it back to a completely different site if
> you let it. There it is again, the browser is in the perfect place to control
> what happens to these cookies.
> Now, consider the alternatives. Hidden tokens in forms and URI parameters can
> both be used to track state, across sites too. These can take a variety of
> forms, and can be hard for the browser to detect and therefore take action
> on. If we remove cookie functionality from HTTP, we essentially remove
> something useful just because it can also be used badly. Worse, more sites
> will use the alternatives, and it will become harder for you/your browser to
> That said, there's nothing to stop sites using alternative, more underhand,
> methods of tracking anyway, irrespective of whether cookies exist.
> Fsuk-manchester mailing list