95% of firms not ready for cookie laws

Ironically the ICO website uses a cookie to track whether a user has given permission for cookies to be used.

By 0thello on 10 Apr 2012

@0thello

On the other hand, without that cookie, they would have to ask on every visit, if the user wants to save the cookie or not...

For a single visit to a site, they could use the session to hold the answer (and all other information they want, as that isn't a cookie)...

Pretty pointless.

By big_D on 10 Apr 2012

Not ironic

0thello's wording seems a bit misleading - "whether" implies that they set a cookie to show if a user has REFUSED permission (which of course would be ironic), as well as if they accepted.

But the cookie is set ONLY IF they tick the box and give permission, so it doesn't have to be ticked again (which is perfectly reasonable). If they don't tick the box, it reappears next time because no cookie has been set (there is no way of actively refusing permission).

By halsteadk on 10 Apr 2012

Why are cookies bad but our government knowing where we've been and who we've been emailing good?

By Mark_Thompson on 10 Apr 2012

When does 'enforced' not really mean 'enforced'?

Whether you agree with it or not, the EU Directive came into force last year. There's been a 'grace period' of 12 months (not unusual) before the legislation is 'enforced' in UK law.

Except it seems that
'enforced' doesn't really mean 'enforced' in the ICO's dictionary, because website owners for whom the change is apparently far too complex to have been achieved in 12 months will be immune from any action as long as they are 'trying to get there'.

How about, instead, slapping the maximum £500,000 fine on any website owner not compliant by the deadline they've known about for a whole year. I wonder how many website owners would still be 'trying for compliance' by the deadline if they'd had any fear of being fined?

Is there any point at all to the ICO?

By PRcons on 12 Apr 2012

EU Department of Inept Legislation

Here we go again.

It is not too long ago that a Windows Update deleted my installed Internet Explorer and forced me to answer a browser ballot so that I could get it back again. At the time, I had 5 browsers installed on my computer. I considered this to be reckless interference, worse than the supposed problem the browser ballot was supposed to solve.

But who do I email in the EU to register a complaint? Anyone got an email address for Neelie Kroes?

Now we find the same ineptness applied to cookies. Browsers can be configured to refuse cookies, accept them, or ask the user to accept or refuse them. Why is that not enough?

The Eurocrats who insist on getting up our noses with this nonsense should be hauled before the European courts for bringing the EU into disrepute (which I gather is an offence).

It's a pity they don't do something useful, such as make it illegal for laptops and mobile phones to be adulterated with unremovable or hard-to-remove crapware prior to purchase, or making it illegal to bundle phones into phone contracts or lock phones to a network, or making it illegal for obnoxious vendors to fight each other over the patenting of different radii of corners for their rectangular boxes with glass fronts, so that users have freedom of choice rather than having to put up with smothering tyranny.

Perhaps I am asking too much to imagine that EU bureaucrats would do something to free people from smothering tyranny.

By fogtax on 12 Apr 2012

Fine 'em back to the Stone Age

PRcons wants to slap a half million fine on every web site owner - well that's me stuffed as everything I own gets nowhere near that. And every every other Mom&Pop website that happens to use Google Analytics has to invent their own wheel to stay out of the workhouse. Crazy! Is crazy!

By andy_g on 12 Apr 2012

Do any European sites comply with the law?

I often use non-UK European websites, and I have yet to be asked for permission for them to set a cookie. Does this mean that all other EU Member States have also delayed implementation by 12 months, or could it just be that the equivalent bodies to the ICO elsewhere are implementing the directive with more of a light touch?

By ianbyrne on 13 Apr 2012