Leosghost - 2:24 pm on Apr 5, 2012 (gmt 0)
I'd make a better guess, if the two parts that were unintelligible that I mentioned in #4437430 had been audible..they may well have contradicted his vague remarks about browsers signaling "acceptance"..
He did rather go out of his way to be "vague" whilst saying all the time that the vagueness was intentional and was for the webmaster's benefit..vague legislation and unwritten rules for compliance help no one, except lawyers who subsequently have to be employed to defend cases of non compliance..and compliance officers who wish to have discretionary ( read ..depends who you are and who you know ) powers..
Doesn't help that the legislation was drawn up by people who haven't a clue about the technicalities of the subject, other than they wanted to do something in the face of public concern about the "stalking" and "profiling" done online by Google, Facebook et al..
And G and F etc ,were not going to give any legislators a cluebat and a guide book to cookies and tracking, in case the legislators used it to hit them with a soon as they realised what is really going on and who is the real problem ..of course the legislators involved in the "ISPs must keep records and allow intercepts" ..do have a clue..but they are a big part of the problem..