Wedge

You have access to the repo :P In various stages of working so they might need to be tested offline first.

The repo is in the same place as Wedge's repo except the URL ends in arantor_weplugins instead of arantor_wedge. All users who have access to the main repo have access to the plugins repo.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that the whole implementation of the cookie law is farcical. But it's making site developers go back and think about the cookies that are required and consider whether that feature is necessary. For me, that's a huge deal, because it's encouraging developers to take some responsibility - and it's making site owners do the same, which is a great thing, even if for the wrong reasons.It doesn't. But informing users of how their information is being used can do because it gives them the power to understand what their data is being used. I just wish it were more driven by site owners wanting to take that responsibility without having to be strong-armed into it in any fashion.This is actually why I railed about people not reading the laws as written and relying on third party reporting on the subject. The laws are about making site owners review their software and making a judgement about things. It starts by asking 'do you need to track anything' rather than presuming that tracking is actually required.

Even a session cookie is not really required, except for analytical purposes. But would anyone think about that aspect without a review like this being put under peoples' noses?

-sigh- Then nothing I've said has been worth the effort of thinking about it.

You know me, I'm the first to think ill of users :P But I dispute the validity of 'stupidity'. It is not stupidity, it is a lack of education on the subject. I would argue that it is the user's responsibility to understand some of what their computer is doing, much as I would imagine any driver should be aware of really common faults and things that shouldn't be the case on a car, even if they can't strip the engine and rebuild it themselves. THAT, I will argue, is stupid.

That at least is the way I see it for regular users. They do not take responsibility for the way things work that they have control over; those who care already did something about this.

Now, lawmakers. I don't have a lot of faith in lawmakers as far as legislating the internet goes. I don't have much faith in this law for example, other than the fact that it directly affects me to have to deal with it. It is because these people do not understand how the internet works and assume that 1) it is a single united entity and 2) laws can be applied equally everywhere. Of course neither of these are true, and the lawmakers end up screwing something up even if it is with the very best of intentions behind the law.

This law, however ill-implemented it may be, is designed to protect user privacy. DNT and similar measures also put user privacy at the front, though are implemented by people who at least understand some of how the systems work, but even DNT and ilk are flawed because again they put the onus on the developer/site owner.

I'm fully of the belief that there are stupid laws. Most of what comes out of the DHS seems to be flawed, especially with the likes of the TSA... the effectiveness of the measures of actually detecting anything contraband aside, it's guaranteeing that the terrorists win, because now the terrorists do not actually have to do anything and yet everyone is running around on alert and implementing all these measures, which will never be tripped; it's all shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

Getting down to the point about informing users, informing users is a good thing however you slice it. You're taking responsibility for your end of the bargain, it's not your problem whether users don't bother to read such things. That's one of the flaws with this law is that it's educating users to just click yes, just like Vista/UAC did. You can lead a horse to water, etc.

But if users have access to that information - something not widely normally available - they can make a decision whether to accept cookies or not, or even set up some exclusion rules should they so desire. It's giving the choice and responsibility to the user. You can't make them take that responsibility. But I believe you have to give them the tools to do so - and without laws like this (or, hopefully, better thought out ones), there will never be any reason for site owners to be accountable other than what they 'feel' is right.

The argument is that a plugin should be created similar to the one in SMF by Emanuele, except that it's a bit different as it's not possible to modify core behaviour like that with a plugin, meaning we pretty much have to do it in the core - though we can leave it disabled by default.

Do note that unlike the Humble Bundle and similar, this one doesn't come with donations to charity IIRC.

Actually if you read the laws it's not exactly about using cookies. It's about using methods to track users, of which cookies is the most well known and most entrenched. localStorage is mentioned indirectly but because it's not sent automatically every request it's actually much less of a threat.Read the laws. You're responsible for the data you're sending. Is it wrong that you should be reasonably accountable for the data that you have control over? That's really what we're arguing about here: the right of site owners not to be held accountable for what data is collected about users. Why should you have that right?While I understand your sentiment, I'm not opposed to *some* regulation, handled sanely. The web is a wilderness as it is, and frankly it would do some good for some proper sane regulation, but no-one can be trusted to enforce it without the inevitable cries of censorship.

What is freedom of speech? Does the right of freedom of speech entitle you to publish content banned in some countries? Is freedom of speech a legitimate defence for 'child porn'? Before campaigning for freedom, you would do well to understand what the flipside of having those freedoms is.Now you understand my dilemma. I AM IN THE UK, I HAVE TO CONTEND WITH THIS LAW. But not only do I have to contend with this law for my own stuff (which I haven't yet, I would add), Wedge has a responsibility to deal with it too.

But more importantly, as a site owner you have to be responsible about the data you're sending. Is that really such a big deal for you? What the hell happened to accountability and taking responsibility?

Why are so many people wanting to avoid having to take some responsibility for what they're doing? Why, also, are there so many revolutionaries that are all talk and no action? I hear an awful lot of people that want to stick it to The Man, but I don't see anyone much actually doing anything about it.

As far as the DPA goes, they're not considered personal information. But I agree that something should be shown to guests when posting.