Privacy watchdogs: Silence isn't cookie consent
Thumbs up required
Advertisers are wrong to say that websites can comply with a new law governing internet cookies by relying on a user's cookie settings, Europe's privacy watchdogs have said. The Article 29 Working Party has published its interpretation of the new law.
Prior consent is required, according to the privacy watchdogs. However, consent can be given to advertising networks covering thousands of websites and need not be given to every individual site, the regulators said.
Cookies are small files that websites send to web browsers to tag visitors. They form the basis of behavioural advertising systems which attempt to tailor adverts to particular demographic groups.
Last year the EU's Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive was changed to demand that storing and accessing information on users' computers was only lawful "on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information … about the purposes of the processing".
An exception exists where the cookie is "strictly necessary" for the provision of a service "explicitly requested" by the user – so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent. Other cookies will require prior consent, though, and the law must be implemented in member states by May 2011.
While advertisers' trade bodies claimed that advertising behaviour need not change, some internet law experts, including Struan Robertson of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, said that website publishers would more likely have to ask visitors' permission before using cookies.
The Article 29 Working Party is a committee made up of the data protection regulators from the EU's 27 member states and it has just published its opinion (pdf) on what this new law means.
Advertisers had argued that because browser software can block cookies, any user who does not block cookies is effectively giving consent.
The Working Party rejected that view.
"Consent must be obtained before the cookie is placed and/or information stored in the user's terminal equipment is collected, which is usually referred to as prior consent," said the guidance. "Informed consent can only be obtained if prior information about the sending and purposes of the cookie has been given to the user.
The Working Party did not go as far as to say that every single website needs to ask every single visitor to accept cookies, though. It said that because the cookies are used by advertising networks – which provide ads to many sites – then consent can be given to a network and cover all the sites that network serves.
"Users' acceptance of a cookie could be understood to be valid not only for the sending of the cookie but also for subsequent collection of data arising from such a cookie," said the report. "In other words, the consent obtained to place the cookie and use the information to send targeting advertising would cover subsequent 'readings' of the cookie that take place every time the user visits a website partner of the ad network provider which initially placed the cookie."
The Working Party said that this consent should expire after a year, and that each ad network should request consent again every 12 months. It also said that the consent could be withdrawn at any time.
Advertisers have rejected the Working Party's definition and claim that it is anti-business and unrealistic.
"The Directive currently does not require an opt-in for cookies. In practice such a requirement would mean that users would have to confirm every single cookie placed on their PCs, leading to a permanent disruption of their Internet experience," said a statement released by the Internet Advertising Bureau Europe, the European Publishers Council and other advertising and publishers' trade bodies.
"The industry believes this is a gross misinterpretation of the intention of the Directive and a misrepresentation of the type of data typically collected and processed for the purposes of serving interest-based advertising to consumers on our websites," said the statement. "The ePrivacy Directive acknowledged that the controls in modern web browsers give users full and granular control over cookies."
Struan Robertson said, though, that while the new law passed last year was regrettable in terms of the effect on the commercial interests of publishers, it likely means what the Working Party says it means and not what the ad and publisher trade bodies claim.
"The new law is a shambles, in my view. It's ambiguous and potentially contradictory and I would also argue that it's unhelpful not just to businesses but also to consumers," he said. "The IAB had said that publishers and advertisers could rely on browser settings to indicate consent to cookies. The Working Party says you can't. We expected that. It isn't surprising because while the IAB's interpretation of the EU law was commercially attractive, its legal basis was somewhat weak and vulnerable to challenge."
Robertson said that the Working Party's interpretation of the law is more business-friendly than might have been expected because it demands that web users are asked for cookie permissions less frequently than might have been the case. But he said that, though an accurate interpretation of the law, it would still cause problems for business.
"The Working Party is basically saying websites have to ask their visitors a question while the IAB is saying they don't. That's a massive difference," he said. "Advertisers and publishers would rather not ask that question if they can avoid it because the answers could damage their businesses. The trouble is that the Working Party's interpretation of the law is, in purely legal terms, the most compelling interpretation, however flawed and unhelpful that law may be."
The Working Party's report also said that behavioural advertising should be labelled as such. Consumer regulator the Office of Fair Trading reported last month after an investigation into behavioural advertising. It said that behavioural ads should be labelled, and the IAB told OUT-LAW.COM that it is working on a pan-European labelling scheme.
Copyright © 2010, OUT-LAW.com
OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.
For you I play this; the world's smallest violin.
What they realy don't like
Is that most people will say no.
"leading to a permanent disruption of their Internet experience"
This is coming from an ADVERTISER.
Briliant if its upheld and enforced
If this is upheld and actually policed, then it's fantastic news. Just think - all those zillions of ccokies that are of no practical value to you at all will be gone. Poof!! Google will love this - NOT!
"The Directive currently does not require an opt-in for cookies. In practice such a requirement would mean that users would have to confirm every single cookie placed on their PCs, leading to a permanent disruption of their Internet experience," said [...] the Internet Advertising Bureau Europe.
So ...errr ....stop asking for permission and stop setting the cookies? Sounds like a very simple solution to me. In fact, it's less work for all concerned :-)
Of course, they won't want to do this resulting in loads of web sites dropping their ads because they are distrupting the user experience and turning customers away. Hey! We have a result :-)
I'm sure I'm not alone in the view that while I realise that advertising exists, it really rattles me that the advertisers try and kid us that they are doing us a favour, and that we really want this stuff. Even though they know they are not kidding anyone, they still persist with this line. Now if only we had an opt-in law for junk snail mail. I'd vote for that.
Advertisers have been getting away
with this for YEARS. I never asked for cookies and never wanted cookies. I do not want to give advertisers ANY information and I certainly do not want them serving me ads.
If I want something, I'll look for it.
This just redresses the imbalance. After all, if these people were playing fair to start with, there would be no need for this action to be taken.
I agree with Paul4, the advertisers are sh*tting themselves because the majority will say NO.
They can say bye bye to their new cars.