Comments for Law in the cloud

Comment on Cookies and consent by Alex

Alex — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:33:25 +0000

I’d love to have this browser string:
Contiki/1.0 (Commodore 64; http://dunkels.com/adam/contiki/)

I don’t have the network card at the moment to make it work though.

Comment on Cookies and consent by John H

John H — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:27:25 +0000

Yes, but unlikely to be used by more than a tiny minority of web users. A more common issue (and one which raises its own data protection issues) is where more than one person in a household is using the same computer.

Comment on Cookies and consent by Alex

Alex — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:22:27 +0000

Although IP spoofing and/or browser misidentification could still hide things?

Comment on Cookies and consent by John H

John H — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:14:15 +0000

Yup, the “Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16″ stuff.

Comment on Cookies and consent by Alex

Alex — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:11:13 +0000

User agent string being the browser identifier or what, precisely? (Pardon my lack of knowing. You are an IP Lawyer. I am a mere mortal)

Comment on Cookies and consent by John H

John H — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:49:59 +0000

Well, as someone pointed out at the seminar I mention in this post, IP address + user-agent string is enough to uniquely identify almost all website users, without storing anything on their computers.

(The new law covers any “information stored on a user’s terminal” – i.e. not just cookies but (as @alexanderhanff pointed out on Twitter) Flash LSOs and HTML5 web storage.)

Comment on Cookies and consent by Alex

Alex — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:07:34 +0000

That’s fascinating. So what constitutes informed consent? And what sort of browser exploits akin to cookies will the advertisers come up with next to circumvent the EU law?

Comment on Cookies and consent by John H

John H — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:19:36 +0000

Yes, I remember that – back in the days of IE5 and earlier, at a guess. And even now if you use a command-line browser like Lynx/Links or W3M, as I recall you’re still asked about each cookie.

But even that wouldn’t be enough to comply with this law, as people need to give informed consent. Not just “Accept/Reject”, but “This is what this cookie’s going to do: [EXPLANATION]. Accept/Reject”.

Comment on Cookies and consent by Alex

Alex — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:32:59 +0000

I seem to remember about 10-15 years ago, early on in the world of cookies, a person was actually asked to accept all cookies by the browser. I don’t remember when cookies became passive, but at one point there was a choice involved. I don’t think it’s a huge hassle to have to accept cookies; it may affect the way the web-presence is monetized.

Comment on Competition closed? by John H

John H — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:19:15 +0000

Josh:

note that it took adult apps off its store in response to consumer demand.

Indeed. So there are two strongly contradictory sets of consumer demand: the demands of those who want to “keep it clean”, and the demands of those who… don’t.

There is, of course, a highly efficient and effective means of providing for both those sets of demands to be satisfied: the market. (Yes, you did just hear me say that. I’ve no problem with the market – in its place.)

The problem with closed platforms is that they interfere in the market for apps on each device. Now yes, people can then choose a different platform if they’re that bothered about it – which is one reason mobile app stores haven’t yet appeared on the competition authorities’ radar – but if you look at the wording of UK/EU competition law then there is a good argument for saying that each platform’s app market is a separate market in its own right.

From a competition law POV, saying “Well, buy a different phone, then” is like responding to monopolistic behaviour by motor manufacturers in relation to spare parts by saying, “Well, buy a new car from a manufacturer who allows an aftermarket”.