8 ms·

I'm the founder of Silktide and they guy who wrote that page. Whilst I appreciate the law exists for a good reason, that doesn't mean the law is good. In it's

I'm the founder of Silktide and they guy who wrote that page. Whilst I appreciate the law exists for a good reason, that doesn't mean the law is good. In it's current form it simply doesn't help user privacy or website owners. I'm hardly alone in saying as much. We ourselves wrote no "functionality that tracks people" - our site merely uses Google Analytics (anonymous measurement of visitors) and social plugins like Disqus, the Tweet and Like buttons. By the letter of the law those have to be concealed until a user has manually opted in to display them. In practice everyone instead started showing slide-down banners which accomplish nothing for privacy but piss off users. Anyone who uses analytics properly knows there's no equivalent log-based solution. Understanding the path users take through a site, how long they view pages for, whether they buy when they came from one advert versus another - these are common practice for good reason and they have ABSOLUTELY ZERO implication for user's privacy, as all this data is anonymous. The relatively few websites which genuinely might be jeopardising user's privacy - Facebook, Google, Amazon etc - tend to be large, ubiquitous and mostly ad networks. The average 10 page company website is not technically sophisticated enough to subvert a user's privacy nor do they have the visitors to do so. My fight is with a stupid law, not with privacy.

motoford 14y ago
You refer to Facebook, Google, Amazon as the real culprits, and not yourself -- but right above that you admit to embedding those same services on your site. Whether you wrote it or use it makes no difference, your users privacy is compromised when they visit your site.
- oliveremberton 14y ago
  You're right of course, but as the only solution would be for: (a) Us to remove said services (b) Our competitors to not (c) Us to suffer unjustly, while they prosper Then no. The obligation should be on the provider of those services, or the law should be enforced equally. It's not enforced at all. We clearly explain what those services do in our privacy policy and we include in that an explanation of why we see there being no meaningful privacy implication for users. What's the worst Facebook/Google could do with your information - know you looked at our website? It's hardly porn.
  - TeMPOraL 14y ago
    > You're right of course, but as the only solution would be for: > (a) Us to remove said services (b) Our competitors to not (c) Us to suffer unjustly, while they prosper That everyone else is doing wrong is not an excuse to do wrong as well. Suffer with dignity, or be treated as one of the "bad guys".
    - michaelt 14y ago
      I believe what they're saying to the ICO is that either the law should be enforced on them and their competitors equally; or it should be discarded.
      - mike-cardwell 14y ago
        What they're saying is that non-EU companies don't have to obey this law, so they don't want to either.
  - mike-cardwell 14y ago
    The fact that non-European companies can abuse their users privacy in this manner, is not a good enough reason to allow European companies to do the same. If this is the way we wanted things to be, we'd get rid of the minimum wage so we could compete with Chinese labour costs better. It's a trade-off. We gain privacy, and some companies potentially lose some business.
    - oliveremberton 14y ago
      I agree, but that's not what I'm saying! The law is not enforced in the UK at all. Accordingly those who do comply are being penalised unjustly. The ICO (body responsible for enforcing) have themselves said they probably won't prosecute people for using analytics, because even though that's against the law it's not really all that bad. That's just one example of how vague the law has become. So we're left in a mess where no-one knows what to do, and those doing the least possible profit. Hence our stance. Hope that makes sense!
eckyptang 14y ago
I agree the law is bad. I actually stated that the legislation is not very good. However, suing people is probably the best approach bar forcing Firefox, Chrome and IE to ship Ghostery (then what are you going to do?) I mean you're obviously annoyed, aware and scared of the consequences. However, the fact that you plug oddles of stuff into your web site that intentionally tracks people and hide under the banner of "we merely use" is the sort of attitude we don't want and the sort that should get you sued. Ignorance and laziness is not an excuse. I don't want to be tracked by Google Analytics and for my usage to be profiled and tracked across different sites (this almost certainly does happen as GA is capable of reading enough info from the browser to identify a user or at least build a persistent profile). Google do not have to operate under EU privacy laws as they aren't EU based. Disqus, Twitter, Facebook all track users through these buttons just by them simply being there. None of these have to operate under EU privacy laws as they aren't EU based. Your buttons and analytics MUST be disabled until someone agrees because you operate under EU privacy laws. That's your problem. Either put the banner up or get rid of all the junk that you've plugged into your web site. Regarding analytics, it sounds like analytics has grown to encompass too much of your business model. Have you thought that perhaps you are possibly not entited to the information that you gather? As for advertising - if your revenue is derived from that, good luck. You're going to die miserably. Find a better model. Build something you can sell rather than something you can scatter with crap to pay your bills. Sorry don't I don't buy your argument. It seems naive and arrogant. Users first, or to hell with the WWW.
- oliveremberton 14y ago
  If we subscribed to this logic: "Either put the banner up or get rid of all the junk that you've plugged into your web site." then we'd still be setting cookies, but we'd be telling users about it after we did so. This is exactly what most sites are doing right now, and it's clearly farcical. When you start attacking anyone who depends on advertising on the Internet - by which I guess you mean Google, Facebook, Twitter and every commercial news site in existence - then I start to lose you. Those services cost billions, and somebody has to pay for it.
  - eckyptang 14y ago
oesmith 14y ago
> The relatively few websites which genuinely might be jeopardising user's privacy - Facebook, Google, Amazon etc - tend to be large, ubiquitous and mostly ad networks. The average 10 page company website is not technically sophisticated enough to subvert a user's privacy nor do they have the visitors to do so. What this law should have required is a way to opt out of the tracking systems themselves. I should be able to opt out Adsense tracking wholesale if I want to (although, tbh, I think I might prefer targeted ads over generic random BS appearing in the sidebars of every site I visit). Having to opt out on every different European site that embeds Adsense is thoroughly retarded, especially when you consider that many sites don't even give you an option to opt out -- they just tell you to leave if you don't consent to being tracked!
mikeash 14y ago
How can you say that Facebook genuinely might be jeopardizing users' privacy, but you aren't, then say that you embed Like buttons in your site?
Camillo 14y ago
Can't you guys think of anything better than a sliding banner? For example, the two-click solution developed by Heise: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/german-website-creates-two-click-like-button-facebook-not-amused/3247 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/german-website-creates-tw... It lets you have your "social" buttons without the tracking.
rickmb 14y ago
I have one suggestion for you: stop blaming everyone else. The law itself is just fine. It's insufficient in itself, but so is the law making theft illegal. If you use Google Analytics and third party social widgets, you're aiding and abetting, you're aiding and abetting companies that violate people's privacy rights on a massive scale. You choose to do so, so you should accept the consequences and the responsibility instead of pointing the finger to everyone else. As an industry, we've had over a decade to fix this problem until the politicians finally took action. We, Silktide include, have not only done fuck all to solve the problem, we've participated in making is massively worse by putting Google Analytics and Facebook like-buttons on every site we put our hands on. The politicians you're ridiculing are at least trying to fix the mess we created. We took a dump on privacy rights, and are now bitching about how bad politicians are in cleaning it up. You really think they're going to listen to us as long as we keep acting like spoiled children with zero sense of responsibility?
- oliveremberton 14y ago
  "We, Silktide include [sic], have not only done fuck all to solve the problem" You mean apart from creating the most popular, free, open source solution for complying with the law? http://silktide.com/cookieconsent http://silktide.com/cookieconsent Or proposing alternative solutions that might actually work: http://blog.silktide.com/2012/09/fixing-a-broken-cookie-law/ http://blog.silktide.com/2012/09/fixing-a-broken-cookie-law/ Or creating a free information site to help people comply? http://silktide.com/cookielaw http://silktide.com/cookielaw Or debating the nuances of how the law might be interpreted for the past 18 months? http://blog.silktide.com/2011/05/cookie-law-makes-most-uk-websites-illegal-what-you-need-to-know/ http://blog.silktide.com/2011/05/cookie-law-makes-most-uk-we... http://blog.silktide.com/2011/05/can-we-use-analytics-with-the-new-uk-cookie-law/ http://blog.silktide.com/2011/05/can-we-use-analytics-with-t... http://blog.silktide.com/2012/02/cookie-law-analytics-are-illegal-but-we-wont-prosecute-you-probably/ http://blog.silktide.com/2012/02/cookie-law-analytics-are-il... I'm hardly alone in my opinion of this law. Read any number of technical or legal opinions on the matter: Wired - http://bit.ly/lJQs4x http://bit.ly/lJQs4x The Guardian - http://bit.ly/mQKOnv http://bit.ly/mQKOnv OutLaw - http://bit.ly/6VZgd http://bit.ly/6VZgd TechCrunch - http://tcrn.ch/JC15c3 http://tcrn.ch/JC15c3 and they're virtually unanimous: this law is a total clusterfuck.

motoford 14y ago

You refer to Facebook, Google, Amazon as the real culprits, and not yourself -- but right above that you admit to embedding those same services on your site. Whether you wrote it or use it makes no difference, your users privacy is compromised when they visit your site.

oliveremberton 14y ago
You're right of course, but as the only solution would be for: (a) Us to remove said services (b) Our competitors to not (c) Us to suffer unjustly, while they prosper Then no. The obligation should be on the provider of those services, or the law should be enforced equally. It's not enforced at all. We clearly explain what those services do in our privacy policy and we include in that an explanation of why we see there being no meaningful privacy implication for users. What's the worst Facebook/Google could do with your information - know you looked at our website? It's hardly porn.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  > You're right of course, but as the only solution would be for: > (a) Us to remove said services (b) Our competitors to not (c) Us to suffer unjustly, while they prosper That everyone else is doing wrong is not an excuse to do wrong as well. Suffer with dignity, or be treated as one of the "bad guys".
  - michaelt 14y ago
    I believe what they're saying to the ICO is that either the law should be enforced on them and their competitors equally; or it should be discarded.
    - mike-cardwell 14y ago
      What they're saying is that non-EU companies don't have to obey this law, so they don't want to either.
- mike-cardwell 14y ago
  The fact that non-European companies can abuse their users privacy in this manner, is not a good enough reason to allow European companies to do the same. If this is the way we wanted things to be, we'd get rid of the minimum wage so we could compete with Chinese labour costs better. It's a trade-off. We gain privacy, and some companies potentially lose some business.
  - oliveremberton 14y ago
    I agree, but that's not what I'm saying! The law is not enforced in the UK at all. Accordingly those who do comply are being penalised unjustly. The ICO (body responsible for enforcing) have themselves said they probably won't prosecute people for using analytics, because even though that's against the law it's not really all that bad. That's just one example of how vague the law has become. So we're left in a mess where no-one knows what to do, and those doing the least possible profit. Hence our stance. Hope that makes sense!

eckyptang 14y ago

I agree the law is bad. I actually stated that the legislation is not very good. However, suing people is probably the best approach bar forcing Firefox, Chrome and IE to ship Ghostery (then what are you going to do?) I mean you're obviously annoyed, aware and scared of the consequences. However, the fact that you plug oddles of stuff into your web site that intentionally tracks people and hide under the banner of "we merely use" is the sort of attitude we don't want and the sort that should get you sued. Ignorance and laziness is not an excuse. I don't want to be tracked by Google Analytics and for my usage to be profiled and tracked across different sites (this almost certainly does happen as GA is capable of reading enough info from the browser to identify a user or at least build a persistent profile). Google do not have to operate under EU privacy laws as they aren't EU based. Disqus, Twitter, Facebook all track users through these buttons just by them simply being there. None of these have to operate under EU privacy laws as they aren't EU based. Your buttons and analytics MUST be disabled until someone agrees because you operate under EU privacy laws. That's your problem. Either put the banner up or get rid of all the junk that you've plugged into your web site. Regarding analytics, it sounds like analytics has grown to encompass too much of your business model. Have you thought that perhaps you are possibly not entited to the information that you gather? As for advertising - if your revenue is derived from that, good luck. You're going to die miserably. Find a better model. Build something you can sell rather than something you can scatter with crap to pay your bills. Sorry don't I don't buy your argument. It seems naive and arrogant. Users first, or to hell with the WWW.

oliveremberton 14y ago
If we subscribed to this logic: "Either put the banner up or get rid of all the junk that you've plugged into your web site." then we'd still be setting cookies, but we'd be telling users about it after we did so. This is exactly what most sites are doing right now, and it's clearly farcical. When you start attacking anyone who depends on advertising on the Internet - by which I guess you mean Google, Facebook, Twitter and every commercial news site in existence - then I start to lose you. Those services cost billions, and somebody has to pay for it.
- eckyptang 14y ago

oesmith 14y ago

> The relatively few websites which genuinely might be jeopardising user's privacy - Facebook, Google, Amazon etc - tend to be large, ubiquitous and mostly ad networks. The average 10 page company website is not technically sophisticated enough to subvert a user's privacy nor do they have the visitors to do so. What this law should have required is a way to opt out of the tracking systems themselves. I should be able to opt out Adsense tracking wholesale if I want to (although, tbh, I think I might prefer targeted ads over generic random BS appearing in the sidebars of every site I visit). Having to opt out on every different European site that embeds Adsense is thoroughly retarded, especially when you consider that many sites don't even give you an option to opt out -- they just tell you to leave if you don't consent to being tracked!

mikeash 14y ago

How can you say that Facebook genuinely might be jeopardizing users' privacy, but you aren't, then say that you embed Like buttons in your site?

Camillo 14y ago

Can't you guys think of anything better than a sliding banner? For example, the two-click solution developed by Heise: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/german-website-creates-two-click-like-button-facebook-not-amused/3247 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/german-website-creates-tw... It lets you have your "social" buttons without the tracking.

rickmb 14y ago

I have one suggestion for you: stop blaming everyone else. The law itself is just fine. It's insufficient in itself, but so is the law making theft illegal. If you use Google Analytics and third party social widgets, you're aiding and abetting, you're aiding and abetting companies that violate people's privacy rights on a massive scale. You choose to do so, so you should accept the consequences and the responsibility instead of pointing the finger to everyone else. As an industry, we've had over a decade to fix this problem until the politicians finally took action. We, Silktide include, have not only done fuck all to solve the problem, we've participated in making is massively worse by putting Google Analytics and Facebook like-buttons on every site we put our hands on. The politicians you're ridiculing are at least trying to fix the mess we created. We took a dump on privacy rights, and are now bitching about how bad politicians are in cleaning it up. You really think they're going to listen to us as long as we keep acting like spoiled children with zero sense of responsibility?

oliveremberton 14y ago
"We, Silktide include [sic], have not only done fuck all to solve the problem" You mean apart from creating the most popular, free, open source solution for complying with the law? http://silktide.com/cookieconsent http://silktide.com/cookieconsent Or proposing alternative solutions that might actually work: http://blog.silktide.com/2012/09/fixing-a-broken-cookie-law/ http://blog.silktide.com/2012/09/fixing-a-broken-cookie-law/ Or creating a free information site to help people comply? http://silktide.com/cookielaw http://silktide.com/cookielaw Or debating the nuances of how the law might be interpreted for the past 18 months? http://blog.silktide.com/2011/05/cookie-law-makes-most-uk-websites-illegal-what-you-need-to-know/ http://blog.silktide.com/2011/05/cookie-law-makes-most-uk-we... http://blog.silktide.com/2011/05/can-we-use-analytics-with-the-new-uk-cookie-law/ http://blog.silktide.com/2011/05/can-we-use-analytics-with-t... http://blog.silktide.com/2012/02/cookie-law-analytics-are-illegal-but-we-wont-prosecute-you-probably/ http://blog.silktide.com/2012/02/cookie-law-analytics-are-il... I'm hardly alone in my opinion of this law. Read any number of technical or legal opinions on the matter: Wired - http://bit.ly/lJQs4x http://bit.ly/lJQs4x The Guardian - http://bit.ly/mQKOnv http://bit.ly/mQKOnv OutLaw - http://bit.ly/6VZgd http://bit.ly/6VZgd TechCrunch - http://tcrn.ch/JC15c3 http://tcrn.ch/JC15c3 and they're virtually unanimous: this law is a total clusterfuck.