A little more digging reveals this from the guidance notes...
In a domestic context there will usually be a subscriber (the person in the
household paying the bill) and potentially several other users. If a user
complained that a website they visited was setting cookies without their
consent the website could demonstrate they had complied with the Regulations
if they could show that consent had previously been obtained from the
subscriber.
...So this means that we have to hold records about who's accepted, in a way
that can be corroborated with the user's first visit to the site, and which
should be sufficiently independant to be admissible in a court of law. Hmmm.
Excuse me if I don't jump at this idiot government's scheme to keep people
employed doing useless tasks, or thier intention to keep the hard-drive
manufacturers profits up.
Incidentally, the guidance also makes reference to the 2003 law, requiring,
amongst other things that sites make use of cookies, which they are and what
they do. Now, I'm not aware that any sites have been publicising what they're
storing on your PC (excluding a site-name and brief description in the cookie
itself, if you're lucky), and I'm not aware of any action taken (or any
resultant panic thereof). So if we assume that the 2003 law was successful
only in keeping people employed, and didn't change the content of the web, I
see little reason to think that this revision will be any different.
Tim B.
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
