Demo site appears down, but I get the gist of it. It's just abusing browser caching.
Rather than a bunch of ad networks and analytics companies finding workarounds, I'd rather sites just stand up to this obviously flawed rule. It's ill thought out, and I have no plans to offer one of those annoying "Hey, this site uses cookies, just like every other site on the internet!" alerts.
So in your opinion the flaw with the rule is that it violates your natural right to store cookies on your visitors browsers without asking?
If your visitors have to log in you might as well show them such a message. If they don't have to log in, there is probably also no reason for them to accept your cookies.
While almost every site on the Internet uses cookies, most of them are of no benefit to a visitor. And yes, technical solutions exist, but they are not really suitable for a vast majority of the population that simply does not know about cookies, and which cookies to accept.
It's not a natural right, it's a technical right. It's a fundamental storage mechanism of browsers. It means you don't have to log in every time you browser to my site, or you don't have to enter your birthday every time you want to browse mature content. It means advertisers are delivering the right ads, and that site owners can see where the bounce rates are highest for users and fix that page. Cookies are important, and the web functions better with them enabled and accessible to site owners.
Personally, I get annoyed when I'm badgered by notices, and sometimes even modal windows, for cookie notices. Of course your site uses cookies, it's just like every other site on the web. I shouldn't have to agree to a notice every time I visit a new domain. I have a browser toggle and if cookies offend me for some reason I can disable them.
No site can force you to set their cookies - you can simply turn that option off in your browser. You can even whitelist just the sites you trust, or blacklist just the sites you don't trust.
Not that you can really tell, anyway - it's impossible to know just by looking at a cookie what it's really being used for, or what data on you is being tracked. There are certainly good reasons to give cookies to users that have not logged in yet, though - one example that springs to mind is a CSRF token.
Lastly, what is this meant to achieve? The aim is to crack down on activity that was already illegal before this law came in. Sites that were doing naughty things and tracking users illegally aren't exactly going to stop because they now have to show a notice about cookies. Before the law came in I said "they'd just not bother showing the notice" but frankly, the could abide by it - users would just click "yes" anyway out of habit!
My problem is that since it came into force, every website bothers me with these popups and of course most of the time you click 'yes' because you wanted something off the website and clicking 'no' probably won't help you get it. The flaw is that while they seemed to expect that lots of companies would stop using cookies on their websites, instead you just get these damn popups from them all to which 99% of everyone is clicking 'yes' because even asking that kind of question is not really suitable for a vast majority of the population that simply doesn't know about cookies.
It hasn't significantly improved privacy for anyone but has made the Internet a bit more annoying.
Rather than a bunch of ad networks and analytics companies finding workarounds, I'd rather sites just stand up to this obviously flawed rule. It's ill thought out, and I have no plans to offer one of those annoying "Hey, this site uses cookies, just like every other site on the internet!" alerts.