Should Governments Mandate Cookie Transparency?
from the is-that-needed? dept
The BBC is reporting on the EU's e-privacy directive that's set to go into effect towards the end of May, which will apparently require that sites using cookies get explicit consent from users before using certain forms of cookies. As some have noted, the BBC's version of this is a bit one-sided, and the details aren't quite as bad as the original report makes it out to be -- but that doesn't mean they're good, either. Basically, this new directive will mean various EU countries have to pass laws relating to transparency around cookies, and those laws could push sites to have to ask before placing tracking cookies. It appears this is mostly limited to cookies that also track info off-site -- so mainly advertising cookies, rather than login or shopping cookies (which likely wouldn't be impacted).Still, even once you understand the details, I have to question why this is necessary. Asking people to opt-in to any cookies just creates a massive nuisance for everyone. While the supporters of such rules believe that this increases knowledge and transparency, there's little evidence that this is the case. Instead, as some earlier studies have suggested, it seems to just increase the nuisance factor. People who are regularly presented with a popup asking them for permission to proceed just get into the habit of clicking to make the box go away, rather than understanding what they're clicking. That's because when they go to visit a site, they don't care about the cookies and don't want to be interrupted.
I'm sure the politicians supporting this move think they're doing something good, but it really does the exact opposite of what they really want. It won't make people care any more about their privacy. It'll just make them more annoyed about the overall process. The way to make people more concerned about their privacy is to educate them and make it their choice in how they deal with these things. There are already plenty of easy-to-use tools on the market for users to set up preferences via browser extensions. Mandating rules for websites is just going to cause a hassle for everyone else.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cookies, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But...
So while it would be a major PITA for you or I, at least it gives those w/no clue, some pause for thought.
And perhaps users would be more likely to decline off-site cookies. Do we really need the big ad machine agencies having carte blanche to follow everyone, everywhere, off-site ...just because mom, dad, and the old folks don't grasp what a cookie is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...
So while it would be a major PITA for you or I, at least it gives those w/no clue, some pause for thought.
And perhaps users would be more likely to decline off-site cookies. Do we really need the big ad machine agencies having carte blanche to follow everyone, everywhere, off-site ...just because mom, dad, and the old folks don't grasp what a cookie is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But...
It's an annoyance. I was completely flabbergasted when I first set up the system to find that it recommended that the main user account be set up as, no shit, a "Guest."
"Thank you for purchasing our operating system, you incompetent noob. Enjoy your computer on which you will be unable to install anything, including Flash or Java updates."
I've used Windows 7 and it still seems to be concerned that every user with brick their computer right out of the box. Every plugin install is hounded by dialog boxes asking me if I want to change the registry, etc. What the hell? I though I made it pretty clear I wanted it changed when I clicked on "I Agree" button and the Install as Administrator command and right-clicked to download and etc.
I can hardly wait for this to fly through so that the internet itself runs like an operating system that plays 20 questions with the user every time a minute upgrade is applied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But...
Oh, you mean like OSX. Yeah its annoying.
"Every plugin install is hounded by dialog boxes asking me if I want to change the registry, etc. What the hell?"
If you dont know how to turn that feature off, then it is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would personally like to see browsers ship with an option to block third-party resources entirely. Not just blocking cookies and referrers, but blocking images, frames, videos, scripts, etc entirely. Does youtube.com need to know I visited your page even though I didn't click on the video? Does prototypejs.org need to know every time I visit a page that hotlinks prototype.js? If we're going to have options, that's one I'd like to see.
But again, these should all be a decision between a user and his browser, not some website and his government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keeping cookies at bay in OSX
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone will end up writing a Greasemonkey script to disable the annoying popup that tells them about the cookie they already blocked.
Offhand, I'd say this is yet another case of a government regulating something that it doesn't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The idea of poll testing is alive and well - so yeah, why not go full retard.
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_14345675
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Morons
Sounds to me like getting rid of the nobility by chopping their heads off. Do you realize how many IPs - yes, providers�- are morons themselves, either as single individuals or as organisations? If you're an IP yourself, pardon me, and if you think that wisdom is a feature of IPs, well, think again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's really on the browser developers...
Most users aren't aware those extensions exist or the privacy risks associated with third party cookies at all. And some people who became aware yesterday or last week are asking their governments to regulate it. Where were they 16 years ago? LOL.
I guess nobody could have predicted the abuse of cookies would get to the point is at today, where a few big companies now have as much spying power as big brother and can track the exact sequence of pages a user visits no matter what site they go on. They're basically trading services like "free analytics" and "free comments" to website owners for their visitor's information and they take it hook, line, and sinker.
Regulation won't fix the problem because a lot of the lawmakers are promoting some very bad plans like popups for everything and those laws would only have reach within their own country anyway. I think a good cookie whitelisting and third party cookie blocking system needs to be added to the browser cores. Extensions break between versions but a core addition wouldn't, and it would bring more awareness since it's a "new" feature. Users liked it when popup blocking was finally added into browser cores, and better cookie control would be along those same lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a lot easier to implement than you're making out.
Personally, I don't have problem with tracking of the sites I visit - whenever I browse, I do so under the working assumption that that information may one day become public knowledge - but I am sick and tired of the adverts that "stalk" you through the web, trying to prompt you to buy things that you had only glanced at on other sites. Especially if I've already bought it cheaper somewhere else. So, whilst I may have to do extra work to deal with this in my professional life, I don't immediately have a problem with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analytics Data
For example collecting analytics data is vitally important to websites and without it sites would not only generate less ROI but would also as a result not best suit the visitor expectations.
The data collected is only specific to a person by IP, no personal data such as names and addresses are recorded. Whilst the BBC doesn't say otherwise I do feel that the reporting is bordering on sensationalism (again) rather than educating the populous as to what cookies really do and why they are needed.
It should be the visitors choice as to whether they decide to browse with cookies enabled in their browser or not - it is not practical to accept or decline on a site by site basis. No one wants pop ups on every site they visit.
On the subject of tailored adverts based on browsing history - again I don't see the issue with this. Visitors would prefer to see adverts that are of their personal interest rather than about unrelated topics.
Users also understand that in many cases adverts pay for the site upkeep that they visit. Making them less efficient and decreasing the sales return will either reduce website quality or drive more content to be subscription based.
I can't see that many website owners are going to listen to this regardless of how it may be introduced into law. How can it ever be policed anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law passed in Denmark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell no! Transparent cookies are hard to eat: I can never find them! Just like camouflaged steak or the invisible cake (it's not a lie, it's out there somewhere...taunting me).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
Come on EU! Stop thinking about things backwards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New opportunity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cookies and stuff
True, not everyone choses to be knowledgeable in computers. Is that a reason to dis them? Suppose I used my (definitely superior) knowledge of mathematics, physics, or law to call the computer people hacks? Feel good?
Personally, to me, advanced knowledge in any field is a TOOL that one uses; it does NOT make you "better", it simply makes you better qualified in areas requiring that tool. It certainly does not justify belittling others (in fact, I have found that people who do are generally inferior).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]