@Mandville and @Webdongle
I don't mind being chastised, but only when I am in the wrong.
--- part 1 ----
can i highlight the following posts to you, and sorry but it seems like you didnt read the posts before you joined this topic
viewtopic.php?f=575&t=708343#p2796727 where the document you mentioned was already discussed with a different interpretation
I did read the post, it links to the article but does not discuss it.
The text after the link does not refer to the article, and the quote in the same post is not from that article.
So the document was not discussed (requires 2 or more people to comment directly on it), and no interpretation of the document was made.
The post concludes (after the unrelated quote) with the glib statement:
Okay, the only answer to all this is to stop using the internet at all. Simples!
Which has no bearing on the article, and is simply being facetious.
I therefore humbly suggest that you read the post again, and the article it links to, and the unrelated text and quote. Then point me to the place where a discussion about that article (in this forum) took place, and exactly where and how that post interprets said article.
Even the commments on the article itself only offer opinions, and the interviewer (in those comments) quite rightly points out that
from the comments on the article wrote:
No specific examples were given and Dave was (deliberately) vague about what would and wouldn't be acceptable since they don't really know themselves.
[mod note: removed comment]
--- end of part 1 ---
[mod note: removed comment]
--- part 2 ---
Also (as pointed out by mandville) this thread is about the impact on non-commercial sites and about the necessity of session cookies. Neither of which is covered in the article you mention.
Really? The original post that starts the thread makes no reference to the impact on non-commercial sites, and only mentions session cookies in the abstract - relating to making Joomla working without using session cookies.
The thread continues with discussions surrounding the session cookie and its impact on database access, before mandville posted about a meeting and you followed up with a post about the ICO (who used to write a cookie, but now don't).
satingoth (thread starter) then links to the article mandville said had already been discussed (see above).
At that point I joined the thread, asking for feedback about a possible solution I am testing. Thanks for the feeback, I am still improving it and may re-ask for feedback later.
I also asked about security regarding the session cookie and the effect of not setting it, but there does not seem to be a clear answer to that yet.
The thread continues with links to wolf-software and their solution(s) - to which I also contributed.
The thread diverts to a couple of "the ICO said but didn't put it in writing" posts. I also commented about the ICO and that is when I linked to the article in question, this time taking quotes from the article (some people don't want to follow a link) indicating that the ICO don't know the answers and are unwilling to be definative.
We (Webdongle and I) then disagree about the interpretation - which is OK, it just underlines the point about the ICO not being definative.
Mandville then posts that I didn't read the thread (see my answer above), then you (Webdongle) make the assertion regarding the thread being about the impact on non-commercial sites - which it isn't, as only 2 posts mention non-commercial sites (one asking if they are counted, and the other showing that they are).
Finally, while I agree that the article does not explicitly mention session cookies, it is a valid link for this thread due to the fact that it shows that the ICO do not know if session cookies (necessary or not) are to be included or exempt from the regulations.
--- end of part 2 ---
I will finish this post now, and await the replies with interest (and a super-soaker and a fire resitant all-in-one suit).