One thing that strikes me reading this, is that the only thing that's changed is that Google won't disallow it. But I think it would make more sense if the ICO actually just went after the companies doing fingerprinting directly, instead of being angry at Google for not enforcing things for them.
There is a subtle but important difference here.
If governments enforce policy by bullying HSBC/Google/E.ON to enforce policies for them, there is no legal opportunity for companies and individuals to argue for their sake. You'll just be shut out of your bank/advertising/electricity for doing something "wrong".
If instead UK ICO would bring a legal case against an individual or company applying fingerprinting (and I'm no advocate of fingerprinting, but that's besides the point) then they can defend themselves in court.
There is a subtle but important difference here.
If governments enforce policy by bullying HSBC/Google/E.ON to enforce policies for them, there is no legal opportunity for companies and individuals to argue for their sake. You'll just be shut out of your bank/advertising/electricity for doing something "wrong".
If instead UK ICO would bring a legal case against an individual or company applying fingerprinting (and I'm no advocate of fingerprinting, but that's besides the point) then they can defend themselves in court.