UK Cookie Consent Banners Draw Complaints

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Cookie Consent Banners Draw Complaints

Posted by timothy on Thursday December 20, 2012 @04:30AM from the well-that's-a-surprise dept.

nk497 writes "Earlier this year, the UK's data watchdog the ICO started enforcing an EU rule that means websites must ask visitors before dropping cookies onto their computers. However, it was willing to accept 'implied consent' — telling visitors that cookies are used on the site, and assuming they were fine with that if they keep using the site. That led to banners popping up on every major website, including the ICO's site, warning users about cookies. Now, the ICO has revealed that many of the cookie-related complaints it's received in the past six months are actually about those banners — and the law itself. The ICO said people 'are unhappy with implied consent mechanisms, especially where cookies are placed immediately on entry to the site,' adding 'a significant number of people also raised concerns about the new rules themselves and the effect of usability of websites.'"

15 of 108 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Baffled by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why do I need a law about cookies when I can very easily manage who I allow to put cookies on my machine? Why would I trust a third-party site to respect my wishes on cookies? This whole thing seems like government overreach to me.
Irony by Rik+Sweeney · 2012-12-20 04:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

These banners annoy the living crap out of me. Every time I go to a website, they pop up, obstructing the screen.
Of course, there is a way to make them go away, by accepting the cookies on the website.
Whereas before I could just discard cookies upon exit, I now have to permanently accept them just to stop these banners appearing.
Oh, the irony!

--
Summation 2
Most users are not geeks by tepples · 2012-12-20 04:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why do I need a law about cookies when I can very easily manage who I allow to put cookies on my machine?

Because most users other than you have not been trained in how to "very easily manage who [they] allow to put cookies on [their] machine".
1. Re:Most users are not geeks by IamTheRealMike · 2012-12-20 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You don't need to be trained. If you hear about this issue and care, you can just search on Google for "how to disable cookies" and get the main browsers help pages right at the top. This isn't exactly rocket science.
2. Re:Most users are not geeks by Fallingcow · 2012-12-20 05:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Is the Google in my Internet? I don't think I have the Google. My Internet is Comcast.
3. Re:Most users are not geeks by dmacleod808 · 2012-12-20 05:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  you forget the subset of the population who does not fundamentally understand how to use google. Step 1. Go to google.com Step 2. Search for Yahoo. Step 3. Click on yahoo. Step 4. Search for gmail.
  
  --
  There Can Be Only One...
4. Re:Most users are not geeks by Obfuscant · 2012-12-20 07:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's a natural response to a computer system where you have to double click some things to get them to do something and single click others. Why waste time clicking once, waiting to find out that nothing happened, and then have to double click it again?
  Same computer, same mouse, same display, different actions.
  I find this to be an issue even in Linux. My desktop has a firefox icon on the desktop, and one in the taskbar at the top. On the desktop, click twice. In the taskbar, click once. I'm very used to seeing the warning from firefox that there is another instance running ...
5. Re:Most users are not geeks by frisket · 2012-12-20 08:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Setting application preferences is hardly a "skill."
  Oh yes it is. Most users have absolutely no idea you can even do this.
  
  Do you really have to be a geek to get that far?
  Unfortunately, yes.
Step 1... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-12-20 04:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

1. Law is passed in an attempt to curtail your behavior.
2. You object to this law and wish to continue doing whatever the fuck you want.
3. You implement the most annoying clickwrap contract-of-adhesion you can come up with to stay within the letter of the law, continue doing whatever the fuck you want, and imply to your customers that regulatory meany-heads are to blame for their experience sucking.
4. Profit!
1. Re:Step 1... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  By purposfully mis-interpreting the law, both in action as in "oh whoo me" bullsh*t messages going out to Joe public.
  For instance: websites do not need to ask for permission for cookies needed for the programs on the site itself needed to run it -- they are just not allowed to keep any identifiable info after the visitor leaves.
  As for a ruling most websites most often conveniently forget ? That they must provide information what they will do with the personal identifiable data once you accept that cookie.
  Oh yeah, and the minor point that its not actually about that cookie, but instead of them not being allowed to follow you (no matter the method, including stuf like 1x1 images on the webpage) as long as you do not agree to it.
  Yes, many of them they have interpreted the law either as not to effect them (for whatever reason), as a kind of EULA thing (You do not need to know what you are agreeing to, just click "OK" and all will be fine), or have created a popup hell for the user.
  Oh, by the way: Did you know that cookies without personal identifiable data in them are already exempt from that cookie law ? Meaning that something like a "FollowMe=No" cookie may be placed without even needing to ask the visitor ? I'm sure they do not (want to) know that either.
  Captcha: detach
  How fitting.
Of COURSE There Are Complaints! by Y-Crate · 2012-12-20 04:41 · Score: 4, Funny

They're not Biscuit Consent Banners!
Typically devised by idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

The cookies system of consent might be ok if they had been devised by three year olds, but having left it to overpaid politicians, they are not.
Specifically:
1. they popup for all sites
2. they cost users money since its extra bandwidth; on mobiles with the crappy browsers, often clicking on ok, assuming you can actually hit the silly little X icon, result in a retransfer of the web page
3. almost none of the web sites understand who you are, so you see them continuously
4. they appear right in the middle of the (pitifully few words of) text which appear on most web sites
5. they are difficult/impossible to block across the range of browsers a real user needs
6. most people, myself included, have no clue what the point of this exercise is
Sure, I dont want to be tracked - so just dont track me. Dont put pointless garbage on my screen which nobody cares about.
Honestly, bring back the three year olds !
Re:Of course it is hard by omnichad · 2012-12-20 05:07 · Score: 3, Funny

cookies enable some pretty good behavior on web sites
Right. If you don't block cookies using browser settings, the web site needs to store a cookie on your computer to remember that you don't want to store cookies!
Mod Parent +1 Insightful by JoshDM · 2012-12-20 05:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Dear Mom, I would give you all my moderator points if I had them. Now please stop using the computer. -Josh
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-12-20 05:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion