New European "Cookie Law" to Effect EU affiliates?

1. 99

   Susana Sposted 14 years ago

   I saw this on the UK news yesterday. The European parliament is implementing a new privacy law (from 25th May) that will require websites to get "explicit consent" to track users via cookies.
   
   My immediate thought was that any affiliate marketers that target the European markets will need to adapt to this somehow, otherwise affiliate tracking cookies will be useless.
   
   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12677534
   
   Your thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      This is insane. Utterly nonsensical and another step towards the complete takeover of the Internet by Government and Media Inc.

      replyreport
      1. 99

         Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Yep, totally insane. I'm hoping that there will be an easy work around such as keeping the options for cookies via browsers, rather than individual websites.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Stupid question: surely a large part of Amazon's way of interacting with its customers depends on cookies - without cookies, how would Amazon be able to stick a load of personal recommendations on its home page before you even log in?  Or am I missing something?
      
      Maybe sites like Amazon can get round the "explicit consent" thing by including a tickbox for customers to select (or deselect) when they set up an account.  (Again, maybe I'm missing something - maybe this EU law is so draconian that it needs more than just a tick box.  Which wouldn't surprise me, beaurocratic overpaid spoilsports that they are )

      replyreport
      1. 99

         Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         A big site like amazon could easily do some kind of check box when someone signs up or do it the next time someone visits if they have already signed up. I think that is exactly the kind of thing the new rules would be wanting to see. It probably wouldn't affect amazon too bad because people like amazon and tend to buy many times from them. Same with eBay or iTunes...
         
         The thing I can't imagine is all the little sites managing to get people to agree.

         replyreport
2. 0

   ryankettposted 14 years ago

   The new trend in the UK is to consider any EU law to be completely crazy and unproductive, we over ruled one recently. It sounds like we are in no rush to implement it, neither are any of the other nations in a position to do so.
   
   I'm glad that our government has identified the damaging effects on business. I wish that we would leave the EU in a formal sense, the stuff that they dictate is ludicrious. Did you know that bananas have to be a certain straightness to be sold legally in the UK? That is thanks to the EU. Selling a curvy banana is illegal unless marked as "Grade B".
   
   Bunch of underqualified control freaks in Brussels.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      recommend1posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Hard to see how they would make cokkies illegal isn't it.
      
      BUT the bananas - I think a little deep digging will reveal that it was to protect the European owned banana trade from a head on attack by the US banana owned traders.  And both don't want the delicious curvy Chinese bananas making all those slave plantations redundant - er sorry, I meant western owned plantations in third world countries.

      replyreport
      1. 99

         Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The law is not making cookies illegal, but telling website owners that they have to get explicit consent to place a cookie in the visitors browser.
         
         Can you imagine having to fill out a form for every website you visit!

         replyreport
   2. 99

      Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed - a lot of EU law is completely nuts, but at the moment internet privacy is a big deal for many people after all the facebook stuff in the news recently. I think many "average" searchers will prefer not to be cookied if they have a choice.
      
      Not sure how gov't's would ever police this new law though

      replyreport
   3. 61

      kephriraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, the EU was set up as a place for sovereign European countries to come to agreements on common issues that they all wanted to do something about, but the people who run it now seem to think that their job is to rule Europe and to create laws that they think we should have regardless of whether there is any demand for them in any Eurpean countries let alone in all of them.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         No, sadly it was about setting up a superstate right from the beginning.  Trouble is, us hoi polloi have been the last to know
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 61

            kephriraposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            who are you calling hoi polloi?
            
            

            replyreport
      2. 66

         Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Somehow this reminds me of the USA

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Appletreedealsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            LOL - I was thinking the same thing as I browsed this thread - Yes, I am in the U.S. - but if you pursue the thought one step further - isn't that the mind set of any governing body with a constituency of more than three people?
            
            "Of course I trust my elected officials! - Just not with my wallet or liberties." - GAW
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Surely it is. But somehow people don't get it, and get really surprised when they learn something along these lines.

               replyreport
      3. 73

         frogdroppingposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I doubt very much the EU was ever set up with good intentions, and any post-thinking about how to move forward with it etc etc. Doubtless there was always a mind to impose, impose, impose.
         
         Bent bananas, 6" long cucumbers, firm and straight - you'd think that the EU was run by a testosterone driven teenager. Must be a youngling, someone older would at least have insisted on an extra couple of inches
         
         As for the OP *nods at Susana* it's about as ridiculous as any other hairbrained scheme that lot can come up with after a wine fuelled lunch. Not just happy with ruling the world, they also want the dibs on the virtual one.
         
         Even intangibles aren't safe these days!

         replyreport
   4. 71

      Iontachposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      If Ireland was in a position to leave the EU I wish we would, they speak shite and love to forcefully implement new legislations even though it may be against a countries will. The UK should leave the EU, they don't need it at all.
      
      The EU is after huge amounts of power and control which was certainly seen during the lisbon votes when Ireland voted no and they even considered not to take our vote seriously. Even the UK was shocked at this and challenged the EU leaders due to the dictatorship nature of it all...
      Then all of a sudden a re-election was called and it was 'suggested' we chose a yes vote this time? I mean come on....
      The EU is a conspiracy set up.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         CMHypnoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The UK may have acted shocked, but they then went on to not let us vote on Lisbon here, even though a referendym had been promised

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            That's Labour for you. I hate the Conservatives too, but they right were right about something, the "left" if you can even call them that f*cked us all up the ass and left us swimming in sh*t.

            replyreport
      2. 0

         ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Switzerland and Norway had the right idea. They agreed to free trade and free movement of people but opted out of everything else. The only other benefit is that it prevents Russia from playing the tyrant, the EU can hold its own in the big bad world of global politics.
         
         I support military union, free trade, free movement of EU citizens. Nothing else. And I suspect that those three selling points were the only reason us minions agreed to the union in the first place.
         
         I have one regret from my childhood, and that was failing to learn another European language. Why? Because when the UK joins the single currency I want out. To Europe? Nope. South America

         replyreport
3. 76

   Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago

   I think the privacy policy that Adsense asks for is enough.
   
   Here is what HubPages privacy policy says about cookies:
   
   Cookies. When You visit the Website, we may send one or more cookies – a small text file containing a string of alphanumeric characters – to your computer that identifies your web browser. You can set your web browser to refuse cookies; however, this may limit the functionality our Website can provide to You.

   replyreport
   1. 99

      Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That's a standard policy, but it would not be enough to comply with this new law.
      
      This article explains things better (sorry I should have posted this in the OP): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12668552

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Hubman007posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Im confused, so if we have a person click our amazon link then we wont have our affiliate cookie unless they agree to it?
         
         No way would anyone agree to it and this is potentially putting many people out of business!?

         replyreport
         1. 99

            Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            No idea how this would work worldwide or for Hubpages, I was thinking more about those of us with co.uk domains or who sell directly to EU customers. Maybe .com's would be exempt since it would be a EU law, but I really don't know, sorry!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Hubman007posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Does sound like something that could be very damaging potentially!
               
               Especially if starts a trend!

               replyreport
               1. 99

                  Susana Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep, it could majorly impact earnings for affiliates (as if we need anymore of that right now!)
                  
                  Let's hope that it's simply unworkable

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     CMHypnoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Sounds from the article that the powers that be in the UK don't have a clue how to implement this and what effect it will have on business.
                     
                     It's a joke after all the rhetoric about making things easier for small businesses - sometimes they act like they won't be happy until we are all on benefits!

                     replyreport
4. 82

   BlissfulWriterposted 14 years ago

   That's pretty crazy, because many major websites including Hubpages and Amazon and basically every major website uses cookies.   So visitors have to click okay every time they come to a website now?

   replyreport
5. 87

   mistyhorizon2003posted 14 years ago

   I was really surprised to read the 'bent banana' comments here, as I am certain I read something about a year ago that said that EU ruling was only a rumour, (spread by people against the EU concept), and designed to cause shock to the readers, but the rumour took off and was quoted as being an actual EU law when this never happened. I can honestly say I have never researched this statement, but it certainly made more sense than 'bent bananas' being virtually illegal!!! LOL
   
   This quote from the UK's 'Independent' newspaper says:
   
   The straight banana scare was the classic Euromyth, and was reported widely as fact, both here and in Britain. The Sun carried the banner headline on its front page: ``NOW THEY REALLY HAVE GONE BANANAS.'' The Gay Byrne radio show was so incensed by the barmy ban on bendy bananas that it sent a representative to Moore Street to interview puzzled fruit sellers.
   
   Link http://www.independent.ie/national-news … 79237.html
   
   and news.bbc.co.uk posted this in an article:
   
   Was the European Union trying to ban straight bananas, or bent ones? This story goes back so far that a lot of people are no longer sure quite what the scandal was about. They just remember that Brussels seemed to be taking an unhealthy interest in the shape of this fruit.
   
   Here is the correct answer: the commissioners have no problem with straight bananas, it's the crooked ones they don't like so much, but they have never banned them. As Commission Regulation (EC) 2257/94 puts it, bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature". In the case of "Extra class" bananas, there is no wiggle room, but Class 1 bananas can have "slight defects of shape", and Class 2 bananas can have full-on "defects of shape".
   
   No attempt is made to define "abnormal curvature" in the case of bananas, which must lead to lots of arguments. Contrast the case of cucumbers (Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88), where Class I and "Extra class" cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. Class II cucumbers can bend twice as much.
   
   Link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6481969.stm

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Nope, it was so silly that the tabloids assumed it was a myth or propoganda.
      
      But the rule actually existed in Commission Regulation Number 2257/94, it was actually scrapped recently.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         mistyhorizon2003posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks Ryan, I edited my above post whilst you must have been posting this, but as you can see from the actual law quote, it appears the problem (bizarre though it still seems), was not with a curved banana, but with an 'abnormally curved' banana, (whatever 'abnormal' might be)

         replyreport
      2. 0

         EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         ...and anyway, the BBC (and the "intelligent" media generally - see below) is so biased in favour of the EU that it's hardly surprising that they tried to put a positive spin on the subject.
         
         Anyway, bananagate is only the tip of the iceberg.  The fish quota thing is a far worse example of how EU interference blights livelihoods. 
         
         Speaking of media bias, I watched Channel 4 News the other night when they were talking about proposals to replace compulsory dumping of fish with increased surveillance of fishermen, to monitor what was being caught.  Nobody on Channel 4 questioned the idea of quotas per se, or asked the important questions: namely, (a) whether quotas had actually improved fishing practices and stopped overfishing, and (b) whether it's really a good idea to pool fishing resources so that every EU country has a right to fish in waters that should belong to the UK.
         
         Rant over.

         replyreport
6. 70

   melbelposted 14 years ago

   How is this any different than the policy Google forces you to put on your site in order to be able to show AdSense ads?
   
   From: http://hubpages.com/help/privacy_policy
   
   b. Cookies. When You visit the Website, we may send one or more cookies – a small text file containing a string of alphanumeric characters – to your computer that identifies your web browser. You can set your web browser to refuse cookies; however, this may limit the functionality our Website can provide to You.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Express consent, how many internet users read those? It will require advertisers to actually obtain express consent rather than assumed consent.

      replyreport
7. 61

   recommend1posted 14 years ago

   Just re-reading this - even if the viewer must expressly accept cookies before they are 'legally' passd over this would just cause 90% of the net content to require acceptance BEFORE allowing the page to be viewed at all.  There is no advantage in letting anyone see your stuff if they are not going to be exposed to the adverts.

   replyreport