lexipixel - 5:27 am on May 27, 2012 (gmt 0)
"...when people reject the cookie they should automatically be redirected to..."
I wouldn't look forward to having to click "Okeedokee" over and over again.
The original intent of cookies was to enhance the user experience of a website, e.g.- remember they were there before and what settings they chose, or allow the user to do or download something once, twice, but maybe not three times [for free], etc.
The cookie was the answer to preserving "state" in the stateless environment of HTTP client/server interaction.
The problem, and what I'll call "the pendulum" here has swung wildly in a direction where the user's experiences often are not enhanced at all -- but the site's, and more often the marketer's tracking of the user is greatly enhanced -- at a cost to the user in terms of privacy.
The overwhelming number of cookies laid onto a user's computers soley for the cookie maker's benefit has rendered the idea of having a single setting which allows all websites to deploy all cookies onto the user -- presented as a better option than the user having to "waste their time" by accepting [or rejecting] the cookies one at a time.
This wearing down of the user's patience has spurred such anomalies as Facebook -- a site which collects every action the user takes, every word they type, every photo they upload and offers to share (what isn't theirs) with every other user -- as the cookies pile up and help Facebook profile the user not only on Facebook, but on other sites -- none of which could be done without cookies.
The wearing down of the user in terms of accepting cookies has made Google billions of dollars as they systematically make large corporations billions more dollars and wipe out the livelihood and profits of smaller business people -- again, something that would not be possible without the user accepting cookies.
"The pendulum" has swung so far in the opposite direction of "enhancing the experience of the user" towards "taking advantage of the user", that a mechanism needed to be put in place as a countermeasure.
I for one hope "Informed consent" means that a site will need to explain exactly what each and every cookie is used for, and that it's required to be in very specific language.
Imagine a pop-up informing the user, "Our system is about to place a cookie on your computer. This cookie will not enhance your use of this site, but will give us valuable marketing data about you. Our intent is to aggregate this data and share it with our 'partners' so we can create a comprehensive profile of you and couple our tracking cookie data with information you enter into forms, files you download, contacts you make, and then cross reference that with any personally identifying information we discover on this and any other site in our network of partners. We will store that information for the rest of your life, and will sell it over and over again to anyone willing to pay a fee. Accept this cookie? [_]Yes [_] No."
Until the pendulum swings a lot further towards the user's benefit -- or at least settles at the halfway point, I hope cookies and any other technology used for covert tracking and nefarious data collection are exposed to the light of day.