Why can't sites just provide simple cookie-less browsing experience, turning off their cookie-based features? Instead of forcing this click-through just to show the article, they should just show what they can in read-only mode (without sending the cookie). This is such a misguided knee-jerk campaign from developers.<p>Cookies are NOT OK, I don't want to see them, and just show me the article (or page I originally came to view), thanks. And after I have viewed it, and if I decide to become a user of your site - then you will have my permission to use cookies.<p>The click through pages are the worst (like what www.games-workshop.com has). The pop-up/notification bar some news sites have (like bbc.co.uk) is somewhat acceptable, while obnoxious, as it allows you to read the content without accepting the cookies, and just go your merry way when your're done.<p>So this plug-in is going to auto-accept the cookies on your behalf. But why would you want to do this?
Perhaps web browsers should just include an option to disable cookies. That way, websites wouldn't have to display these kind of alerts, and users wouldn't have to trust that all sites will actually display these warnings before setting a cookie. One could even imagine an advanced web browser feature which would allow users to allow or deny cookies on a per-site basis.
"CookiesOK searches for the accept buttons and triggers the click event" So what happens when someone injects something other than just the cookie code? My browser will auto-accept that as well?
Does anybody know if this is actually being enforced in any way? (The cookie law that is?)<p>I'm in the UK so use a bunch of sites here. What I have noticed is that only large active sites by big companies and orgs actually have cookie notices.<p>None of the other countless sites actually have it at all.
So I'm wondering how long it will be before people just stop putting these things up at all?
There is a pretty simple economic argument that people need to consider before jumping into the cookies are bad camp. The market for display ad inventory alone in the past year was to the tune of $40b in the US. There are 250m active internet users. That $40b dollars goes into the pockets of content producers on the internet that make it the tool it is.<p>Net, if you wanted to drop all of that and get rid of the advertisers, that is a balance of $160 per person per year (and growing) that would fall to some other solution (like increased service charges).<p>As others have made the case, cookies are important for advertisers. If you want to fix the problem, need to consider another viable solution that either does not sweep their legs out or does but provides an alternative revenue stream to keep the internet alive.
This is great, thought about making something like this myself for a while.<p>One problem I have with current cookie law, is that it pretty much <i>forces</i> cookies upon those who actually know how to disable them. If someone browses with cookies disabled, they get all these annoying warnings and yet no way to turn them off - because turning them off requires a cookie! Insanity.<p>And the relevant governing body has pretty much admitted that you'll probably be ok with just a clear description of cookies used. (See the response to nocookielaw.com)<p>Oh AND all American websites will just continue as they were before, except now with an extra competitive advantage.
Does CookiesOK do any type of moderation over the cookies? Checking for domain scope, cookie flags, reasonable expiration of the cookie?<p>I understand that "free" sites need advertising revenue, and unfortunately a lot of ad networks want to track my every move - how about enforcing a compromise where cookies are allowed for X minutes after I hit the page?<p>Security-wise, I'm more interested in enforcing that cookies sent over SSL are not readable via standard HTTP. This tool is a step in the right direction, but I think a few more features would make it pretty attractive.
This plugin has a way for web developers to make their website compatible with this plugin. This seems pointless. The law is clear that, although you the developer can rely on web browser settings, those settings must give the user consent (default web browser 'accept all cookies' do not meet this). Using this plugin would not meet the "give the user consent", so you cannot rely on this plugin <i>and</i> be inside the law.<p>I think making your cookie notice work with CookiesOK is about as legal as just turning off your cookie notice.