UK/EU Cookie Law
As of 26th May 2012 the UK started to enforce its interpretation of EU privacy laws which include legislation relating to the use of cookies on all web sites owned by companies based in Europe. Failure to obtain consent from visitors for any cookie that is not considered vital to the operation of a site could result in a fine of up to £500,000.
In my view, it is a nonsensical law that has been written by technically illiterate individuals who have no comprehension of the ramifications. But then, it was dreamt up by the European Government so little else can be expected.
Complying with this law will cost UK businesses thousands of pounds, result in lost sales and interfere with the operation of their sites.
The the most ridiculous aspect of this stupid law is that it’s been drafted under the auspices of protecting privacy. That in itself is an absolute joke. It’s an EU law and as such no sites run by companies outside of the EU are covered. So, those adverts that are tailored to your browsing habits and know that you were searching for fluorescent green Mankinis will still keep coming! The sites that generate those are AMERICAN and not governed by EU laws.
I have tried to make this site compliant with the law. That’s why a stupid box appears at the top and half the site doesn't display until you accept cookies. I’ve also had to write a compliance statement detailing all the cookies used and warning users of ones set by 3rd parties. It took me two days. Two non-revenue earning days. A waste of time, a waste of money.
The other ridiculous thing is that the law is so vague, no-one knows how to comply. Search the web and there are all sorts of conflicting statements from ‘supposed’ experts. Even the guidelines on the Information Commission web site (who are enforcing the law), read like gobbledygook and are of little help.
One thing’s for sure. There are a bunch of blood-sucking companies springing out of the woodwork cold calling web site owners and using scare tactics to sell their compliance packages!
So, thank you European Government for yet more meddling in things that you really don’t have a clue about. Thank you Information Commission for being of no help whatsoever.
Oh and by the way, at the time of writing this, we are only one of 3 countries in the EU to have actually done anything about this, so thanks must also go to the British Government for being a total bunch of Lemmings.
#rantover
**** UPDATE - IMPLIED CONSENT ****
During the afternoon of 25th May, (i.e. at the last minute) the ICO chose to change guidelines relating to 'the cookie law'. This came in the form of a subtle but far reaching amendment to acceptable forms of consent. 'Implied consent' was not considered as a viable or acceptable form of consent by the ICO on the introduction of the regulations but in a now all familiar 'U' turn, this form of consent was added to the list of those deemed acceptable.
What does it mean? Without going into too much detail, it means that by the very action of visiting a site, the user is 'implying' that they accept it may use cookies. Under this model of consent, it means that web site owners can set whatever cookies they want without getting the visitors permission. The visitor still must be informed of the fact that the site uses cookies, given detailed information relating to those cookies and given the option to opt out of their use.
The 'implied consent' model is now the one being used by the majority of web sites including the BBC. It is simpler to implement because you don't have to prevent cookies from being dropped and if a user declines their use, it appears to be a viable option to take them to a static, non-cookie page that explains the ramifications of their misinformed paranoia!
In short, the work that site owners had completed to gain compliance under the original guidelines was a complete waste of time and money. Yet another example of law makers meddling with things that they don't understand and complete disregard to the consequence and cost implication of their actions.
This the personal view of John Beardon and does not necessarily reflect the views of Ashleigh Consulting.