We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
That’s how the cookie warning crumbles KitGuru reports:
The European Union proposes law to stop browser cookie pop-ups
Back in 2012, the European Union passed a law requiring websites to give visitors a warning regarding browser cookies. These pop-ups or banner warnings are now common place across the web and were initially intended to protect user privacy but for the most part, they are just seen as an annoying box getting in the way of whatever content you are trying to access. It seems the European Union now also agrees with that and has proposed new regulations to do away with cookie pop-up warnings.
We initially saw a drafted version of the proposed law back in December but this week, the European Commission officially unveiled its proposal. The plan is to essentially remove website banners that provide disclaimers on browser cookies. A user’s browser preference in regards to cookies will automatically apply to sites they visit instead.
See, Brexit is doing them good already.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Some people (not me, you understand) might say that that was an unnecessarily sarcastic remark, whereas others might suggest that it doesn’t go far enough and that one should further tell them to stick their pathetic rules good and hard up where the midget fears to tread, but I couldn’t possibly comment.
This calls into question the referendum outcome, it should be re-run, that’s how the cookie crumbles. Otherwise, we’d never know what might have been had this unfake news not been hidden by a lack of foresight.
This was always clearly stupid. Browsers already allow users to specify cookie preferences. How was this in any way this an example of people needing government to fix something?
Phil, it was never about the people needing government to fix something. It’s all about the governments need to be seen fixing something. whether it’s broke or not.
Those popups are annoying, and I won’t be sorry to see them go, but I’m surprised to learn that the EU bureaucracy is being in any way responsive to popular sentiment. I’m not close enough to the issue to be sure, but I certainly don’t recall ever before seeing such. I can’t help but think that, not Brexit per se, but rather the spirit animating the Brexit vote which seems to be spreading across Europe, is indeed having a salutary effect. One can only hope.
Laird (January 15, 2017 at 3:11 am):
Don’t you start! We’ve had enough of that with Mr Ohopench. 😉
Anyway. it’s highly likely that they cynically only made the useless rule in the first place as a straw man to later demolish, proving that they were indeed being “responsive”, or something.
I had a more cynical idea when I first heard about the change eliminating the cookie warning popups. Namely, that the EU want to impose their own 3rd party cookies on websites, and does not want this to be made obvious to the casual web user.
Naah, that could never happen…
Maybe I am missing something here, if so someone can explain.
Why is it good to BAN cookie warning pop-ups?
Wouldn’t it be better to simply not REQUIRE such pop-ups?
Laird (January 15, 2017 at 3:11 am) “I’m surprised to learn that the EU bureaucracy is being in any way responsive to popular sentiment.”
Maybe not responsive to responsive to popular sentiment; EUrocrats do a lot of work on computers and the popups annoy them too. 🙂
The latter is, of course, another chance to be seen as taking definitive action. To not require the warning is entirely too passive for a politician that must be seen as “doing something about it” — never mind the fact that they were “doing something about it” when they created the problem as well.
Dear Miss Solent
Beurocrats doing what beurocrats do best: make a law/rule/directif/regulation then make another to paper over the cracks in the first and so on ad infinitum.
If this could be done under a space capsule, it would be the quickest way to get to the moon.
@ Niall Kilmartin January 15, 2017 at 9:35 am. Hear! Hear!
DP
Nice Natalie – nice.
I ignored it on Samizdata and continue to do so. Might add one if they prohibit it though 😀
If you think of the EU not as an elective governmental agency of any sort but rather as a regulatory office answerable to no one, Brexit not only makes perfect sense, you wonder why everybody else hasn’t left yet.
Meanwhile, Google add a search penalty to mobile sites with annoying popups (I think they call them interstitials) demonstrating that state intervention is unnecessary.