Slashdot Mirror


UK "No Tracking Law" Now In Effect

Fluffeh writes "The British Gov might have more cameras up on street corners than just about anywhere else in the world, but it seems that the Gov doesn't want anyone else stepping on the privacy of their folks. In what the media have dubbed the 'Cookie Law' all operators of websites in Britain must notify users of the tracking that the website does. This doesn't only cover cookies, but all forms of tracking and analytics performed on visitors. While there are potential fines up up to 500,000 pounds (Over US$750,000) for websites not following these new rules, the BBC announced that very few websites are ready, even most of its own sites aren't up to speed — and amusingly even the governments own websites aren't ready."

15 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. do as I say, not as I do. by Nyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Been hearing this my whole life.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:do as I say, not as I do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have the voice of god in your head!

  2. You maniacs! You blew it up! by jholyhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is another example of what happens when you let computer illiterate politicians have a say in technology regulations

    To be fair, the ICO has proven itself utterly inept when it comes to enforcing its own regulations - I can't see them doing any better with this idiocy.

    1. Re:You maniacs! You blew it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They are not banning anything. They are requiring notifying user about tracking. Not the same thing.

      If this means that every site just shows something like "We use cookies to give you best experience and provide relevant advertising. We also use few analytics scripts", people will simply start ignoring it just like they're clicking through EULAs now. After that, websites could even easily get people to consent to "... and also we'll watch you while you touch yourself. Here, we warned you" - most won't even notice.

    2. Re:You maniacs! You blew it up! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People need to actively accept that you are tracking them. Just showing such text somewhere is not enough.

      Actually, the ICO seems to have pulled a complete U-turn with 48 hours to go, and now says that implied consent can be enough.

      Whether that will stand up to the seemingly inevitable legal challenge in the European courts remains to be seen, but I suspect even the ICO think this is a dumb law behind the scenes, and their language has been softening substantially in recent weeks relative to their early advice.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  3. WIll be very fun to see Gizmodo.co.uk warn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    because atm, ghostery reports 10 diffrent tracking entities.

  4. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's true, Europe is the worst country in the world.

  5. Its an EU directive by stiggle · · Score: 5, Informative

    While the British government might have implemented, the law comes from the EU.
    It actually came in last year and websites were given a year grace to enable the features required.
    Its that grace period which has expired, not that the law has now suddenly been introduced.

  6. It "might", but it doesn't. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Informative

    The British Gov might have more cameras up on street corners than just about anywhere else in the world

    It doesn't, though. The whole "eleventy billion cameras in the UK" thing was made up by one of the screaming right-wing tabloids a few years ago, by counting all the CCTV cameras in about a half-mile stretch of the main street of a fairly scummy part of London, and multiplying by the total length of all the roads in the UK. So, the figure is probably accurate *if* you assume that every single road in the UK has lots of off-licenses, bookmakers, cheque cashing centres, "we buy scrap gold" shops the like - but, it isn't. For the figures to be correct, you'd have to have something like one camera every 60 metres or so on *every single road* right down to farm tracks.

    Most cities in the UK have no more CCTV than cities in the US - and if you think US cities don't have CCTV then I wonder what you think CCTV cameras look like...

    1. Re:It "might", but it doesn't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The British Gov might have more cameras up on street corners than just about anywhere else in the world

      It doesn't, though. The whole "eleventy billion cameras in the UK" thing was made up by one of the screaming right-wing tabloids a few years ago, by counting all the CCTV cameras in about a half-mile stretch of the main street of a fairly scummy part of London, and multiplying by the total length of all the roads in the UK. So, the figure is probably accurate *if* you assume that every single road in the UK has lots of off-licenses, bookmakers, cheque cashing centres, "we buy scrap gold" shops the like - but, it isn't. For the figures to be correct, you'd have to have something like one camera every 60 metres or so on *every single road* right down to farm tracks.

      Most cities in the UK have no more CCTV than cities in the US - and if you think US cities don't have CCTV then I wonder what you think CCTV cameras look like...

      Slash-groupthink at its best. This is a group that will argue for hours over each subclause of copyright law, but will never question statements like this. (That and figure out that the UK != England).

  7. Implied consent is now ok by beebware · · Score: 5, Informative

    48 hours before the law came into force, the ICO issued new guidelines at http://www.ico.gov.uk/news/blog/2012/updated-ico-advice-guidance-e-privacy-directive-eu-cookie-law.aspx which basically reads as "If the user's browser accepts cookies, then they agree to the cookies being stored". Making the whole things pretty moot. Why they waited until the "11th hour" to state the obvious is annoying...

    1. Re:Implied consent is now ok by digitig · · Score: 4, Informative

      48 hours before the law came into force, the ICO issued new guidelines at http://www.ico.gov.uk/news/blog/2012/updated-ico-advice-guidance-e-privacy-directive-eu-cookie-law.aspx which basically reads as "If the user's browser accepts cookies, then they agree to the cookies being stored". Making the whole things pretty moot. Why they waited until the "11th hour" to state the obvious is annoying...

      I can't find that in there. The nearest I can find seems to be "If the user's browser accepts cookies, and the user has a good understanding of what cookies are and how they are used then they agree to the cookies being stored", with the onus being on the site owner to prove that the users have that level of technical knowledge before setting cookies. That would probably be ok for a tech site, but not for a site aimed at the general public. The one site I manage doesn't use cookies, but if I wanted to implement analytics for example then I reckon I'll still need to implement a landing page.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  8. Not actually that crazy by jcupitt65 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The regulations are not actually as crazy as this story makes them out to be. Here are the latest guidance notes from ICO:

    http://www.ico.gov.uk/news/blog/2011/~/media/documents/library/Privacy_and_electronic/Practical_application/guidance_on_the_new_cookies_regulations.ashx (PDF)

    Page 10 has a summary table with some examples of banned (ie. explicit permission required) and OK cookies:

    ALLOWED

    shopping basket cookies
    security cookies (banking, session id, etc.)
    load balancing track things

    BANNED

    analytical cookies (eg. count unique users)
    advertising, both first and third party
    remembering users between sessions for trivial purposes, eg. display a "welcome back" banner

  9. Harm Europe economically? by Geeky · · Score: 4, Interesting
    All this will do is harm European companies at the expense of ones based elsewhere.

    I've seen UK based sites start to implement this, but there's no chance that Facebook, Google etc will follow suit - so if the tracking actually does have monetary value, we've just guaranteed that only non-European companies can benefit from it. Woohoo.

    --
    Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
  10. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Membership in the EU or the EEC is not the same thing as membership in the Euro (i.e. the currency). The UK is very much part of the EU despite not using the Euro.

    captcha: "informs"
    Fancy that.