Cookies mean exactly that. You are just being overly pedantic.
And yes, running JS in a users browser to store or access information is exactly the same. Taking a browser fingerprint and storing it server side is also the same, just harder to get caught doing.
This whole trying to maliciously take these laws literally need to stop.
Yes, I may be overly pendantic. This part just made me suspect that the author didn't have a technological background. That isn't bad per se, as this is mostly a legal topic.
Also, I'm not trying to "maliciously take these laws literally". The law isn't limited to cookies, so you can't get around it by using a narrow definition of the word "cookie".
Nothing in the text makes me think the authors do or do not have a technical background. Everything sounds correct both technically and legally to me (me being a technical person and not a lawyer).
> This part just made me suspect that the author didn't have a technological background.
Or perhaps the author does have a technical background, which is why they attempted to give a clear yet simple explanation for the non-technical?
People hear cookies are bad, they get pestered by cookie banners, so it makes sense to use cookie as an umbrella term. Their definition of tracking matches the law which is the important part.
And yes, running JS in a users browser to store or access information is exactly the same. Taking a browser fingerprint and storing it server side is also the same, just harder to get caught doing. This whole trying to maliciously take these laws literally need to stop.