So you agree it doesn't track users. At least we're on the same page there now.
Why not use a cookie? Because then they can't advertise that they don't use cookies. It's like how they put No-GMO label on food that doesn't even have GMO crop varieties. It's meaningless, but people are uneducated on the subject so it sells products.
You could use a cookie here, and you could do it completely legally without requiring consent. The laws don't care about cookies or other technical implementations, they care about tracking. So the reason to use this cache header instead of cookies is simply because people are uniformed on the subject and it sells better this way.
> Why not use a cookie? Because then they can't advertise that they don't use cookies.
Oh, so they can be craven motherfuckers who abuse protocols for the sake of web analytics. With you so far.
> The laws don't care about cookies or other technical implementations, they care about tracking.
This is flat-out wrong. The law cares about any cookies that aren't strictly necessary for the site's operation. This very well might qualify as a cookie that isn't strictly necessary for the site's operation. It's not implemented as a cookie, but what you say is half right; "the laws don't care about... technical implementations". A judge might not care that you've come up with a clever way of storing your cookie with a different header. It's the same thing as a cookie, and it's not necessary for the site's operation.
Even the good guys are craven motherfuckers to you. Who does measure up to your standards of flawless perfection?
This is an analytics service that respects user privacy. We would be wishing them all the success in the world, not criticizing them for not meeting your ridiculous notions of HTTP header purity.
What a ridiculous notion! Using cookies when you want to set a cookie! Absurd! What we are trying to do is set a cookie while also proclaiming to the world that we don’t use cookies. What’s the matter with that?
I’m sorry, but “I want to sort of lie” is just not a very compelling reason to me. I guess I just have ridiculously high standards.
Why not use a cookie? Because then they can't advertise that they don't use cookies. It's like how they put No-GMO label on food that doesn't even have GMO crop varieties. It's meaningless, but people are uneducated on the subject so it sells products.
You could use a cookie here, and you could do it completely legally without requiring consent. The laws don't care about cookies or other technical implementations, they care about tracking. So the reason to use this cache header instead of cookies is simply because people are uniformed on the subject and it sells better this way.