EU Cookie Law Enforced from 26.05.12 to cost UK £10bn
Discussion
On 26/05/11 a new law came into effect based on an EU directive that requires websites to gain opt in permission for ‘non-essential’ cookies placed on a user’s computer. The Information Commissioner’s Office gave a 12 month grace period before it would enforce the law - by 26/05/12 UK websites must be compliant or be liable to fines.
A non-essential cookie covers the majority placed by websites, for example analytics tracking, A/B testing, personalisation, social network integration and advertising. Pistonheads, for example, places cookies from Google Analytics, from at least 3 ad networks and some session based stuff plus others – the norm for a modern website that has to generate revenue. PH will, under this regulation, need to obtain up front agreement before 25/05.
It’s reported today that the cost to UK businesses of implementing this EU law will be around £10bn/year.
Looking around the web, there is general confusion as to exactly what the law requires and whether it will really be implemented. E-consultancy interviewed the ICO’s Dave Evans and even they seem to have no idea what webmasters are required to do and gives little guidance as to what a compliant website would look like. To quote him:
In short it’s a bit of a mess with most websites not bothering to make the change (because there is little guidance as to what to change to). Parliament.uk shows no signs of being compliant for example.
Other EU countries have mostly ignored the directive. Germany has not yet implemented legislation, France has draft legislation under review. As usual, the UK has rushed an EU directive into law ahead of anyone else.
What a mess - again the UK implements EU anti-business nonsense without thought. A user can turn cookies off or monitor them if they are interested. This punishes compliant websites and will do nothing to curb sites with privacy issues in my opinion.
A non-essential cookie covers the majority placed by websites, for example analytics tracking, A/B testing, personalisation, social network integration and advertising. Pistonheads, for example, places cookies from Google Analytics, from at least 3 ad networks and some session based stuff plus others – the norm for a modern website that has to generate revenue. PH will, under this regulation, need to obtain up front agreement before 25/05.
It’s reported today that the cost to UK businesses of implementing this EU law will be around £10bn/year.
Looking around the web, there is general confusion as to exactly what the law requires and whether it will really be implemented. E-consultancy interviewed the ICO’s Dave Evans and even they seem to have no idea what webmasters are required to do and gives little guidance as to what a compliant website would look like. To quote him:
ICO who can now fine you said:
"We don’t know what compliance will look like in a year’s time."
As one user comments on the article “I've heard some relaxed statements from Regulators in my time, but that one is truly horizontal.”In short it’s a bit of a mess with most websites not bothering to make the change (because there is little guidance as to what to change to). Parliament.uk shows no signs of being compliant for example.
Other EU countries have mostly ignored the directive. Germany has not yet implemented legislation, France has draft legislation under review. As usual, the UK has rushed an EU directive into law ahead of anyone else.
What a mess - again the UK implements EU anti-business nonsense without thought. A user can turn cookies off or monitor them if they are interested. This punishes compliant websites and will do nothing to curb sites with privacy issues in my opinion.
Edited by 0a on Wednesday 25th April 08:20
0a said:
On 26/05/11 a new law came into effect based on an EU directive that requires websites to gain opt in permission for ‘non-essential’ cookies placed on a user’s computer. The Information Commissioner’s Office gave a 12 month grace period before it would enforce the law - by 26/05/12 UK websites must be compliant or be liable to fines.
Does anybody know if the legislation is retrospective - what about existing visitors to PH (for example) with cookies already in place?Also could this not spark a wave of compo surfers, looking for non-compliant sites to sue for invasion of privacy regardless of what the enforcers do or don't do?
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 25th April 08:32
JMGS4 said:
0a said:
Germany has not yet implemented legislation,
Germany will NOT implement due to this being a crass breach of german privacy laws.turbobloke said:
badly thought out.
Exactly the problem. The ICO has been trialling an opt in banner at the top of the homepage and the opt in rate has been 10% (according to wired). Clearly this can't be a solution.Will making the Ts and Cs link bigger and having an explicit section on cookies mean you escape that £500,000 maximum fine?
Who knows!
If you go onto the ICO website you will find a window telling you that they have already put a cookie on your computer. The law is farcical. It is badly worded, with lots of ways out of it. They sugggest you must opt in yet it is not clear whether clicking onto another page after being told that this will put cookies on your computer is opting in.
It smacks of a law that will not be enforced unless there is a complaint. Those who will complain will probably be competitors.
I write SEO copy for an email marketing company, Wizemail, and have written a couple of articles on the subject of cookie law. In order to be definitive I phoned the ICO with some questions. The answer was the same almost every time: We don't know. It was suggested that the situation would 'evolve'. When I pointed out that their own website placed cookies on computers running their site without permission there was stunned silence. I later got an explanation as to why this was essential.
I record all conversations as I'm partially deaf and occasionally miss words and phrases. My wife listened to the tape afterwards and had to laugh. I'd missed nothing.
As you say Germany has admitted that it will not enforce the legislation, France will follow their normal MO in such situations and say they will come down heavily on anyone who breaks the rules but will just shrug and the British will enforce it.
With online marketing taking over from the high street you would think that the government would back this country in such a situation as it is up there in the vanguard. But no.
Up until this time the legislation tended to take a balance between the needs of business and the rights of the public. Not this time.
Bit of a rant. Sorry.
It smacks of a law that will not be enforced unless there is a complaint. Those who will complain will probably be competitors.
I write SEO copy for an email marketing company, Wizemail, and have written a couple of articles on the subject of cookie law. In order to be definitive I phoned the ICO with some questions. The answer was the same almost every time: We don't know. It was suggested that the situation would 'evolve'. When I pointed out that their own website placed cookies on computers running their site without permission there was stunned silence. I later got an explanation as to why this was essential.
I record all conversations as I'm partially deaf and occasionally miss words and phrases. My wife listened to the tape afterwards and had to laugh. I'd missed nothing.
As you say Germany has admitted that it will not enforce the legislation, France will follow their normal MO in such situations and say they will come down heavily on anyone who breaks the rules but will just shrug and the British will enforce it.
With online marketing taking over from the high street you would think that the government would back this country in such a situation as it is up there in the vanguard. But no.
Up until this time the legislation tended to take a balance between the needs of business and the rights of the public. Not this time.
Bit of a rant. Sorry.
Derek - do you know or did you find out if it applies to absolutely all websites or just commercial enterprises? I use that term since charities and other types of website such as information providers may not be seeking income from their site directly but may host adverts or be seen to potentially use information in some commercial manner even if they don't.
turbobloke said:
Derek - do you know or did you find out if it applies to absolutely all websites or just commercial enterprises? I use that term since charities and other types of website such as information providers may not be seeking income from their site directly but may host adverts or be seen to potentially use information in some commercial manner even if they don't.
PM me with your URL.Thee is a simple answer.
0a said:
What a mess - again the UK implements EU anti-business nonsense without thought.
Yeah, you've clearly got a sound grasp of the whole subject....Perhaps you can begin by explaining where the £10Bn cost comes in?
....and then follow up with that masterpiece of uniquely British legislation, the Data Protection Act. As of this morning that spectacular piece of British beaurocracy even has a completely unresponsive website as well as large office building full of jobsworths,
www.ico.gov.uk/
Derek Smith said:
turbobloke said:
Derek - do you know or did you find out if it applies to absolutely all websites or just commercial enterprises? I use that term since charities and other types of website such as information providers may not be seeking income from their site directly but may host adverts or be seen to potentially use information in some commercial manner even if they don't.
PM me with your URL.Thee is a simple answer.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Yeah, you've clearly got a sound grasp of the whole subject....
Perhaps you can begin by explaining where the £10Bn cost comes in?
....and then follow up with that masterpiece of uniquely British legislation, the Data Protection Act. As of this morning that spectacular piece of British beaurocracy even has a completely unresponsive website as well as large office building full of jobsworths,
www.ico.gov.uk/
I don't quite understand your post. The cost was a small part of my post and an estimate as per the article quoted: Perhaps you can begin by explaining where the £10Bn cost comes in?
....and then follow up with that masterpiece of uniquely British legislation, the Data Protection Act. As of this morning that spectacular piece of British beaurocracy even has a completely unresponsive website as well as large office building full of jobsworths,
www.ico.gov.uk/
Telegraph said:
£10 billion due to a combination of lost sales, damage to existing technology and advertising businesses and the migration of online businesses overseas as they seek to avoid the costs of compliance.
Any interruption of the user journey costs sales. An inability to track correctly or an inability to serve ads accurately takes us backwards in terms of the ability to do business online. As an example the ICO's chosen opt in is converting at 10% - this would be a disaster for UK online businesses if we had to do the same to use cookies.What this legislation actually means in practice is not clear as stated by the ICO themselves, and other major EU countries have decided not to legislate yet. This seems a very poor way to regulate (or not, who knows?) online business. Law that even those responsible for enforcement and fines do not understand is bad law.
I have helped implement systems that were fully DPA compliant and don't have a particular problem with the DPA as it stands. What's your point here, the issue under discussion is the new regulation regarding cookie opt-ins not the DPA? Yes, government IT departments are rubbish but what does this have to do with anything?
Derek Smith said:
turbobloke said:
Derek - do you know or did you find out if it applies to absolutely all websites or just commercial enterprises? I use that term since charities and other types of website such as information providers may not be seeking income from their site directly but may host adverts or be seen to potentially use information in some commercial manner even if they don't.
PM me with your URL.There is a simple answer.
This is just about the most stupid law in existence, and i suspect it will be largely ignored.
http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/eu-cookies-directive-... (click cancel for best effect).
http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/eu-cookies-directive-... (click cancel for best effect).
Sonic said:
This is just about the most stupid law in existence, and i suspect it will be largely ignored.
http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/eu-cookies-directive-... (click cancel for best effect).
This. http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/eu-cookies-directive-... (click cancel for best effect).
That site shows just how stupid it is too.
Sonic said:
This is just about the most stupid law in existence, and i suspect it will be largely ignored.
http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/eu-cookies-directive-... (click cancel for best effect).
Very amusing, thanks!http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/eu-cookies-directive-... (click cancel for best effect).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff