cookies

[Baz]

is it possible to block individual cookies from sites rather than all from the site.


in firefox

[Simon]

I'm pretty sure you can, in the cookie settings. 

[kinmel]

Use the Firefox addon Cookieculler and you can select cookies to keep forever, or to be deleted on exit.  You can also prevent deleted cookies from being stored in future.

[Tacitus]

Arguably none of this will matter anyway since in the UK, consent to cookies may be 'implied'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/26/cookies-law-changed-implied-consent

[Gary]

I noticed TB and the BBC now ask about permission to store cookies, will Netters do the same?

[Simon]

We've been having this discussion for several months now, Gary, and I think our Privacy Policy covers it, which users also agree to when registering.  If we didn't use a cookie, no one would be able to use the forum, but all it does is keep the user logged in.

[Baz]

this is part of the reason I ask as I noticed on IDNet home page is a piece at the bottom of explaining which cookies are stored and something about Google cookies but to block them you need an add on or something.

it just got me thinking about it all.

[zappaDPJ]

Arguably none of this will matter anyway since in the UK, consent to cookies may be 'implied'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/26/cookies-law-changed-implied-consent

That demonstrates absolutely the problem this directive is causing. The ICO's interpretation of the EU directive is and always has been, half-baked and fluid. Until the ICO get their act together it would be foolish to implement anything other than a policy statement which we did here some while ago.

The shift towards "implied consent" 24 hours before the deadline is utterly contemptible and represents a complete about turn. It's almost certainly due in part to the fact that most Government websites don't comply with the directive. The ICO is simply not fit for purpose and should be closed down.

[pctech]

I asked the ICO's advice on this some time ago and what I got was a response that amounted to, we don't really have a clue.

[zappaDPJ]

I asked the ICO's advice on this some time ago and what I got was a response that amounted to, we don't really have a clue.

The response(s) I got from them was somewhat different but has amounted to the same.

[pctech]

I asked about cookies set by Google Adssense as was intending to add a couple of ads to the forum I was intending to set up, just to cover the hosting costs but that was the response I got.

If you are really that concerned about cookies you can always set your browser to clear them when you close it, I really think people worry too much about such things.

[gizmo71]

The shift towards "implied consent" 24 hours before the deadline is utterly contemptible and represents a complete about turn.

It might almost look like a sudden outbreak of common sense...

It's almost certainly due in part to the fact that most Government websites don't comply with the directive.

... except that you're very probably right.

[zappaDPJ]

The problem is that common sense doesn't fulfil the requirements of the EU's directive. Whatever the reason (I'm still going with Government's failure to comply) it puts the ICO in conflict with the EU. In addition, website owners that have spent a lot of time and money implementing those nauseating pop-ups and losing traffic because of it must be spitting feathers right now.

Implied consent, if consent must be had at all, is a reasonable compromise, I just don't think it's within the ICO's remit to be issuing that advice.