Explicit permission to be required for cookie usage

[Chunkford]

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

You don't want to know what my thoughts on this are. I will get banned

[neildotwilliams]

I am not sure that they (EU) specifically mean cookies being enabled or not. As cookies are enabled by default I expect them to interpret this as the user not EXPLICITLY giving permission.

I 'guess' that they are referring to the Do Not Track feature which is being implemented in the latest web browsers. See here for a test:
Microsoft DNT Test Page

I think the FCO are still trying to interpret the EU rule themselves. I am trying to interpret their interpretation.

It would be very easy if cookies being enabled can be read as the user giving permission!

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Regards
Neil

[Mike Hughes]

The guys at Safebuy have just sent me this:

We have just (!) been made aware that the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is making a change to the Regulations on the use of cookies on retailers' websites commencing 26 May 11. This has been required by an EU Directive. See below for summary details.

The relevant bulletin is here:
http://tinyurl.com/3nuqo9j

Bearing in mind the information below we will change Clause 7.6 of our Code of Practice from:

7.6 If “cookies” are used the consumer must be advised accordingly and given the choice of opting out.

to:

7.6 If cookies are used the consumer must be advised accordingly and required to agree to their use (‘opt in’) or known to be in agreement by their settings in the internet browser they are using. This requirement only applies the first time the consumer uses the website. Agreement may also be assumed if another program which already has consent is used to access the retailer website.

I've highlighted the bit in red which looks interesting. It explicitly states that browser settings can be taken as agreement by the user to use cookies in line with those settings.

Mike

[Duncan Rounding]

This really affects users of analytical and marketing tools such as Google Analytics, Re-marketing etc. These are vital tools for e-commerce and need addressing in some way if you use them. We (all Analytics users) should really be approaching Google for a response on this.

[NickD]

Does this consent rule apply to every type of cookie?

The only exception to this rule is if what you are doing is ‘strictly necessary’ for a service requested by the user. This exception is a narrow one but might apply, for example, to a cookie you use to ensure that when a user of your site has chosen the goods they wish to buy and clicks the ‘add to basket’ or ‘proceed to checkout’ button, your site ‘remembers’ what they chose on a previous page. You would not need to get consent for this type of activity.

I am now much happier and have no remaining fear of council goons with clipboards. I think this closes the matter for me. I will however add some descriptive words to tell users what my site does with cookies.

[neildotwilliams]

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) advice on the new cookie legislation

Ths ICO has released some guidance on the new Cookie legislation.


http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/docume...egulations.pdf

[Sean Williams]

Good Lord no! I haven't time to be reading all that stuff
C-J is always banging on about broadband in Wales and he always get's his facts wrong and clearly never speaks to those of us suffering both the UK and Welsh governments' complete inabiliy to get it sorted.
IMHO he's been tasked with covering his subject purely with the BBC Breakfast viewer in mind.
Oh. I watch that.

[guccij]

I think he knows more than you think Sean. He spotted that DCMS statement. Did you?

[Sean Williams]

My tuppence worth ....
The Actinic standard T&C's already make the site's use of cookies clear.
I think the legislation is really only targeted at those using cookies to supply focussed advertising as people move around the internet.
We'll simply add a clause to our T&C's making it clear we don't do this.
Probably a 'Cookies' footer link as well.
Don't think there's much else one can do really.
Well done the EU - making a muddy mountain out of a molehill as usual.
And as for Cellan-Jones at the Beeb - I sometimes wonder if he's learned his knowledge of things internetty/broadband/ecommerce by reading dog-eared copies of Your Computer from the '70's, picked up from a car boot sale.

[Duncan Rounding]

Good. It's the only way this could possibly be addressed.

[guccij]

It's going to happen guys. But the govt is going to work with browser "manufacturers" to see if a solution can be found which makes it easier to implement:

http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/8052.aspx

and

http://twitter.com/#!/BBCRoryCJ/stat...49496129482752

[Duncan Rounding]

I don't believe this will become law in May. There is far too many grey areas surrounding it and how it can be implemented - never mind enforced.

I'll first wait and see what the likes of Google and Amazon do about it.

[NickD]

More on this.

Our trade body, the WSTA (Wine and Spirit Trade Association) have picked up on this and have sent a circular email with more info:-

=============================================
(Start circular)

The WSTA attended a conference on the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive where Ed Vaizey MP (Communications Minister) warned businesses of impending changes to EU legislation in relation to the use of 'cookies' by websites.

The new regulation is an amendment to the EU's Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive and is due to be transposed into UK law on 25 May 2011.

Article 5 of the Directive states that storing information on or accessing information already stored on an end user's terminal equipment is only allowed on the condition that the subscriber or user has given consent.

This pauses significant technical challenges and to date the only solution which has been indentified as compliant with the new rules is a change in internet browser settings which manufacturers are working on and is unlikely to be ready in time for the implementation date (according to the DCMS, who is responsible for this legislation).

The DCMS said that it would be advising the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office, who will be responsible for enforcing this legislation) not to take enforcement action against any company that was not in compliance with the law because of the delay to the "technical solutions".

The ICO has confirmed this, and added that they will expect organisations to at least review their use of cookies and to work towards compliance while technical solutions were being developed.

Find below a link to press releases issued by the ICO and the DCMS on this issue:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/docume..._08032011.ashx

http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/7998.aspx

The WSTA will monitor any developments in this area and keep members informed of any official guidance when it becomes available.

(End Circular)
=============================================

I don't think it's going away any time soon, and I still think Actinic should have dialogue with the Information Commissioner to see if any of the approaches discussed on this board (or any other we may not have seen) are acceptable? I'm still worried by the prospect of the goons with clipboards from trading standards.

Nick

[Mike Hughes]

But you have to accept that there's a lot of nonsense discussed as well. I guess that's the problem of not having proper proposals in place by the time it gets discussed in public: People make up their own assumptions.

My own perspective is:

1. Yes, there is a problem with all the 3rd party ad tracking. 5 or 6 years ago I looked at laser eye surgery and about a year after that I had it done. Yet I still get bombarded by ads asking me if I'm "fed up with wearing glasses". No, I'm quite happy with my eyesight thank you but I am fed up with seeing these blooming ads!

2. Despite my browser supposedly 'blocking' 3rd party cookies this still happens. I assume the calling of javascript or tracking images from a 3rd party site means these are no longer 3rd party cookies. I've even deleted all the tracking cookies I can find but they come back again and still appear to know my history. So web browsers don't appear to be the solution.

3. I suspect there are sites out there that are linking the ad cookies with users data to make the connection between people and website usage, so I'm not convinced that all this tracking and advertising is anonymous either.

4. The proposal does appear to be that normal cookies required for the essential operation of a site (which includes cart items, tracking page views and operational stats, etc) are allowed without explicit consent and this would presumably include cookies to say 'I don't want non-essentail cookies'.

Bottom line?

1. Yes, this needed.

2. I doubt if it will be a problem for anyone running an actinic site.

Mike

[Chunkford]

Bumbling idiots is putting it mildly..

I'd be banned if I really put how I feel

Have you guys seen this blog post - http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/eu-cook...171496#respond

There's a post on there that basically says, if someone doesn't want cookies stored on their computer, then it's useless because they can't store a cookie to say no to cookies LOL