Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.20.239.237

Forum Moderators: IanTurner & engine

Message Too Old, No Replies

UK Cookie Compliance Deferred For One Year

     
3:48 pm on May 25, 2011 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:22839
votes: 308


UK Cookie Compliance Deferred For One Year
[bbc.co.uk]
UK websites are being given one year to comply with EU cookie laws, the Information Commissioner's Office has said.

The UK government also sought to reassure the industry that there would be "no overnight changes".

The EU's Privacy and Communications Directive comes into force on 26 May.

It requires user's consent before using cookies - the text files that help organise and store browsing information.



They've seen sense.

Earlier story
UK: Your Cookies Must Comply With The Law, Says the UK ICO [webmasterworld.com]
10:13 pm on May 25, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from GB 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member dstiles is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 14, 2008
posts:3101
votes: 3


What do they propose doing about session cookies? Web servers, especially IIS ones, have no proper control over those: they are even issued as you ask if they are acceptable.

Users cannot, by and large, distinguish between "real" cookies (which MAY involve privacy issues but likely do not - third party cookies excepted) and session cookies, which are essential to keep some sites working.

Cookies have always been a user-acceptance thing, a fact that Firefox has long offered management for. Previous proposals by UK, going back several years, had no idea about what cookies were nor how they were handled.

As to google's involvement - RUN AWAY!

I supose they will go after javascript too? Far more dangerous than cookies! And the BBC site says it needs javascript in order to feed you moving pictures! Good old NoScript!
10:29 pm on May 25, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from FR 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member leosghost is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Feb 15, 2004
posts:6717
votes: 230


Wait 'til they decide to go after activeX ..or xml ..or html ..or whatever else they really have no idea what it does and how it works..( acronyms that they didn't invent are spooooooky and can hack things )..it says so in the daily fail...and on the BBC.

These are laws made by people who call sysads to say their wireless mouse has stopped working ..and don't know which end of batteries is positive without the diagram anyway.
9:59 pm on June 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 3, 2002
posts:18903
votes: 0


This should not be an issue for hundreds of thousands to millions of websites to comply with.

This should be an issue for a dozen browser makers to be told to beef up the cookie control interface, warning messages, and ease of reviewing stored cookies and cookie permissions per site.
10:26 pm on June 20, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 25, 2005
posts:1045
votes: 84


Same nonsense here in The Netherlands:
The Lower House of Dutch Parliament has postponed voting on the Telecommunications Law by one week to 21 June [i.e. tomorrow], because the Socialist Party wants more time to study the amendment over cookies. Labour Party PvdA and Freedom Party PVV submitted amendments, requiring permission only for third party cookies.
Source: [telecompaper.com...]
11:25 am on June 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:22839
votes: 308


g1smd makes a good point. It's a shame it can't be added to a friendlier browser cookie control.

And, yes, it's correct to be deferred while they sort out how best to implement it.
11:29 am on June 23, 2011 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member pageoneresults is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 27, 2001
posts: 12169
votes: 55


There was a link to a graph posted on Twitter yesterday (2011-06-22) showing what happened to one site after implementing explicit cookie opt-in...

ICO website traffic impact of cookie opt in
[flickr.com...]

This information provided by the Information Commissioner's Office under a FOI request I made, shows how traffic measured in the web analytics tool (GA) has fallen by 90% since their explicit cookie opt in request.
11:37 am on June 24, 2011 (gmt 0)

Administrator from GB 

WebmasterWorld Administrator engine is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:22839
votes: 308


Very interesting P1, thanks for sharing that.

I can quite well believe it will have an impact. If some adopt it an others don't, who do you think is going to win out.