4 ms·

I was wondering when another sensationalist blog post would pop-up from Silktide. Last May, the ICO acknowledged that in certain cases, implied consent would b

by grabeh 14y ago

I was wondering when another sensationalist blog post would pop-up from Silktide. Last May, the ICO acknowledged that in certain cases, implied consent would be appropriate and this is judged on the basis of the type of cookies that a site is looking to set plus the information that is made available to a user on its site regarding cookies. The ICO considers that due to having had explicit consent on their site for a number of months, and due to the information generally available on their site, it was ok to switch to an implied consent approach. The cookies that are set when you go on the ICO websites do not include any third party advertising cookies. For other sites, it is not guaranteed that an implied consent will be appropriate where for example third-party advertising cookies are set and very little information is provided generally (for example in a specific cookie policy). As such, it is still for each website to consider whether in their own specific circumstances, it is appropriate to have an explicit consent or whether implied consent is ok. I appreciate that this creates ambiguity but as I understand it, it reflects the present position. I still think the overall aim of the policy in terms of educating users as to the nature of cookies is a good one. That aim is one that is of course not particularly aimed at anyone who browses this website I wouldn't have thought.

alanctgardner2 14y ago
> the type of cookies The ones with text inside them, or the other ones with text inside them? I don't understand how you decide between good and evil cookies. > The ICO considers that due to having had explicit consent on their site for a number of months, and due to the information generally available on their site, it was ok to switch to an implied consent approach Why is there a temporal component ( a couple of months ), surely new visitors come all the time? Why is the content relevant? According to their stats, 10% of the users explicitly consented. Switching to implied consent on that basis makes no sense. > it is not guaranteed that an implied consent will be appropriate I'm pretty sure it's not OK to say 'You might be breaking the law, but we'll let you know once we decide to prosecute'. 'Very little information' is a terrible metric; there's an implication that quality is also necessary. If I populate my user-tracking page with mathematical proofs, I've encoded information on that page - potentially a lot. It doesn't mean anything. > I appreciate that this creates ambiguity I appreciate that you didn't create this law (I hope). Ambiguity is bad. And expensive. All this backtracking they've been doing, it wastes my time, it wastes some civil servant's time, and it accomplishes nothing. It seems like these policies should be like trademarks; subject to dilution if they aren't suitably enforced. If Disney decided to give everyone two years to use their logo free and clear, or they only prevented 'content-free' uses, they would lose that mark.
- Nursie 14y ago
  "I don't understand how you decide between good and evil cookies." It's all in the intended use. Good cookies: Session cookies for ecommerce and other transactional style web interaction Bad cookies: Advertisers tracking cookies that track users across multiple sites without their knowledge or consent. See?
  - mryan 14y ago
    How about "session cookies for ecommerce and other transactional style web interaction, that track users across multiple sites without their knowledge or consent"? Are these good or bad? We can decide on a case by case basis whether any particular use of cookies is good or bad, but coming up with a generic rule to do so is fraught with difficulties.
    - Nursie 14y ago
      Well those would be bad, as they've clearly strayed well beyond necessary use of cookies as a mechanic of the website operating and into tracking people without their knowledge or consent. What about "Tracking people without their knowledge or consent" being A Bad Thing is hard to understand? The original poster said " in certain cases, implied consent would be appropriate and this is judged on the basis of the type of cookies that a site is looking to set". Your example clearly goes beyond.
      - delinka 14y ago
        "...necessary use of cookies as a mechanic of the website [operation]..." My shopping cart cookie that tracks you across multiple websites is necessary because it keeps my prices lower than my competition giving me the competitive advantage and my customers a better price on the things they want. Your turn.
        Nursie 14y ago
        Nope, you're still tracking someone without their consent, your reason is nothing to do with the technical operation of your website. Keep trying though, this is entertaining.
darkarmani 14y ago
> I still think the overall aim of the policy in terms of educating users as to the nature of cookies is a good one. If only users could turn off cookies in their web browser and leave the rest of us alone.

by grabeh 14y ago

alanctgardner2 14y ago

> the type of cookies The ones with text inside them, or the other ones with text inside them? I don't understand how you decide between good and evil cookies. > The ICO considers that due to having had explicit consent on their site for a number of months, and due to the information generally available on their site, it was ok to switch to an implied consent approach Why is there a temporal component ( a couple of months ), surely new visitors come all the time? Why is the content relevant? According to their stats, 10% of the users explicitly consented. Switching to implied consent on that basis makes no sense. > it is not guaranteed that an implied consent will be appropriate I'm pretty sure it's not OK to say 'You might be breaking the law, but we'll let you know once we decide to prosecute'. 'Very little information' is a terrible metric; there's an implication that quality is also necessary. If I populate my user-tracking page with mathematical proofs, I've encoded information on that page - potentially a lot. It doesn't mean anything. > I appreciate that this creates ambiguity I appreciate that you didn't create this law (I hope). Ambiguity is bad. And expensive. All this backtracking they've been doing, it wastes my time, it wastes some civil servant's time, and it accomplishes nothing. It seems like these policies should be like trademarks; subject to dilution if they aren't suitably enforced. If Disney decided to give everyone two years to use their logo free and clear, or they only prevented 'content-free' uses, they would lose that mark.

Nursie 14y ago
"I don't understand how you decide between good and evil cookies." It's all in the intended use. Good cookies: Session cookies for ecommerce and other transactional style web interaction Bad cookies: Advertisers tracking cookies that track users across multiple sites without their knowledge or consent. See?
- mryan 14y ago
  How about "session cookies for ecommerce and other transactional style web interaction, that track users across multiple sites without their knowledge or consent"? Are these good or bad? We can decide on a case by case basis whether any particular use of cookies is good or bad, but coming up with a generic rule to do so is fraught with difficulties.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    Well those would be bad, as they've clearly strayed well beyond necessary use of cookies as a mechanic of the website operating and into tracking people without their knowledge or consent. What about "Tracking people without their knowledge or consent" being A Bad Thing is hard to understand? The original poster said " in certain cases, implied consent would be appropriate and this is judged on the basis of the type of cookies that a site is looking to set". Your example clearly goes beyond.
    - delinka 14y ago
      "...necessary use of cookies as a mechanic of the website [operation]..." My shopping cart cookie that tracks you across multiple websites is necessary because it keeps my prices lower than my competition giving me the competitive advantage and my customers a better price on the things they want. Your turn.
      - Nursie 14y ago
        Nope, you're still tracking someone without their consent, your reason is nothing to do with the technical operation of your website. Keep trying though, this is entertaining.

darkarmani 14y ago

> I still think the overall aim of the policy in terms of educating users as to the nature of cookies is a good one. If only users could turn off cookies in their web browser and leave the rest of us alone.