Compliance with new EU non-essential cookies opt out.

[m8internet]

i have websites on USA servers, do these websites come under the policy because i am in the UK? or are they exempt regardless because they are in the USA?

Did you not read the details in post #14
The regulation only applies to websites hosted on servers in Europe

Hence why google analytics is exempt

[disgruntled]

Did you not read the details in post #14
The regulation only applies to websites hosted on servers in Europe

Hence why google analytics is exempt

I dont think thats actually the case, google is an american company, servers based in america. but besides that, they are a multi million company, do you really think the EU space cadets would go after such a large company? their lawyers would have them wrapped up in so much red tape they would be unwrapping it for years? plus they would have their asses handed to them in small white parcels with usa flags on them lol.

But thats not the point either, my company site is now in the uk, where it belongs and we all no how the uk loves to say no to the EU. Sessions it uses, are required, the only things unrequired so to speak, affiliate cookies, analytics and twitter cookies, altho the last two are not controled by us, we do permit them just simply by using the services.

I think that makes us the scapegoats for these large companies.

I have already implemented my own version of a optin, simple really, it adds yet another cookie. how ironic. I have also made it kinda fun. im thinking of releasing it here actually. it is working in whmcs so i guess it belongs here with all the whmcs stuff.

[disgruntled]

See above
BT have decided a privacy policy is enough
Equally many other large companies have come to the same conclusion, and only have a prominent link to their privacy policy page on their homepage



Take a look at many other non-UK EU websites (which are on EU based servers)
Very few are being as pro-active
However, ICO made a last minute change, which has both angered some large companies that have spent large amounts of money getting ready for this, but not unexpected, that relaxed the requirements
Overall, it has left complete confusion, so much so that two websites I regularly visit have now reversed / removed the previous privacy settings

As has been pointed out before, the privacy settings are WITHIN the visitors browser
The main issue is that people do not completely understand all the settings available within the browser, I myself can spend some time going through them when people report problems...

All good points, but the point remains the law is in force, consider the EU is skint, they want to rob us blind and will take as many as they can to the cleaners before the law turns over their law.

The big fish will not be affected because they can afford not to be.

RE privacy setting, i agree, they have always been available, and in my view if a person cannot competently use a browser and all of its features then they shouldnt be using the internet period. Why on earth should the internet suffer for an incompetent few.

I will say this though, If the EU manages to make this stick, it is the first nail in the coffin for the FREE internet. and that is a very bad thing.

[m8internet]

The big fish will not be affected because they can afford not to be

As yet no websites have had action taken against them or been prosecuted for breaching the changes in the DDA regulations, so why should this be any different...
Yet another square banana law from the EU

[Strother]

Did you not read the details in post #14
The regulation only applies to websites hosted on servers in Europe

Hence why google analytics is exempt

It doesn't matter where the server is, it a matter of where the business is based. If your business is based in the UK (or EU) then the law applies to you, even if your audience is in the US. And, you have to have an opt in system, not just a bit of text regarding cookies.

Enforcement will likely be a joke for the short term, since most government agencies have not even brought their sites up to speed.

[Strother]

This whitepaper has a lot of information and details. But, not exactly a quick read.

It's from the "Information Commissioners Office". I didn't even know we had an information commissioner. Wasn't Joseph Goebbels an information commissioner?

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisati...idance_v3.ashx

Note: Everything I say is opinion, and should not be construed as factual. Most of what I say was meant to be funny, although my wife claims it rarely is.

[Strother]

RE privacy setting, i agree, they have always been available, and in my view if a person cannot competently use a browser and all of its features then they shouldnt be using the internet period. Why on earth should the internet suffer for an incompetent few.

Wow. You know, removing all those "incompetent" internet users also removes a big chunk of the people we all sell hosting and other services to.

Do you test your prospective clients before selling to them. Is there a module for that?

[disgruntled]

Do you test your prospective clients before selling to them. Is there a module for that?

did i offend you? not being funny here but the people who want websites usually have a knowledge of the internet. its insecurities.. and oh wait.. cookies.. now if there was a module to eliminate obnoxious tools.. id buy into that...

maybe my remark was too broad, i suppose, the statement should have been, if an incompetent user cant use a browser then they shouldnt use it and should find one that that can, does that better suit you? personally i will stick with the earlier conclusion because honestly, if they cant even negotiate the workings of a browser, believe me i dont want to be fielding their support requests. we all have clients we would rather not deal with at times. but when they become the norm, im out of the business.

[Strother]

did i offend you? not being funny here but the people who want websites usually have a knowledge of the internet. its insecurities.. and oh wait.. cookies.. now if there was a module to eliminate obnoxious tools.. id buy into that...

maybe my remark was too broad, i suppose, the statement should have been, if an incompetent user cant use a browser then they shouldnt use it and should find one that that can, does that better suit you? personally i will stick with the earlier conclusion because honestly, if they cant even negotiate the workings of a browser, believe me i dont want to be fielding their support requests. we all have clients we would rather not deal with at times. but when they become the norm, im out of the business.

No, I wasn't offended at all. Unless, of course, you just called me an obnoxious tool, but I don't think you did.

I admit that some clients require more attention than others, but that's how I make my living - helping the helpless.

[disgruntled]

No, I wasn't offended at all. Unless, of course, you just called me an obnoxious tool, but I don't think you did.

I admit that some clients require more attention than others, but that's how I make my living - helping the helpless.

I was considering the possibility, anyway you are right and each internet user has their place, but i still feel that because of those that refuse to learn those that have will suffer. maybe thats just the way of the world but its wrong.