Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy United Kingdom Your Rights Online

UK Cookie Consent Banners Draw Complaints 108

Posted by timothy
from the well-that's-a-surprise dept.
nk497 writes "Earlier this year, the UK's data watchdog the ICO started enforcing an EU rule that means websites must ask visitors before dropping cookies onto their computers. However, it was willing to accept 'implied consent' — telling visitors that cookies are used on the site, and assuming they were fine with that if they keep using the site. That led to banners popping up on every major website, including the ICO's site, warning users about cookies. Now, the ICO has revealed that many of the cookie-related complaints it's received in the past six months are actually about those banners — and the law itself. The ICO said people 'are unhappy with implied consent mechanisms, especially where cookies are placed immediately on entry to the site,' adding 'a significant number of people also raised concerns about the new rules themselves and the effect of usability of websites.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Cookie Consent Banners Draw Complaints

Comments Filter:
  • Baffled (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20, 2012 @11:33AM (#42348881)

    Why do I need a law about cookies when I can very easily manage who I allow to put cookies on my machine? Why would I trust a third-party site to respect my wishes on cookies? This whole thing seems like government overreach to me.

  • by tepples (727027) <tepples AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday December 20, 2012 @11:37AM (#42348927) Homepage Journal

    Why do I need a law about cookies when I can very easily manage who I allow to put cookies on my machine?

    Because most users other than you have not been trained in how to "very easily manage who [they] allow to put cookies on [their] machine".

  • Step 1... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @11:40AM (#42348999) Journal

    1. Law is passed in an attempt to curtail your behavior.

    2. You object to this law and wish to continue doing whatever the fuck you want.

    3. You implement the most annoying clickwrap contract-of-adhesion you can come up with to stay within the letter of the law, continue doing whatever the fuck you want, and imply to your customers that regulatory meany-heads are to blame for their experience sucking.

    4. Profit!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 20, 2012 @11:46AM (#42349085)

    The cookies system of consent might be ok if they had been devised by three year olds, but having left it to overpaid politicians, they are not.

    Specifically:
    1. they popup for all sites
    2. they cost users money since its extra bandwidth; on mobiles with the crappy browsers, often clicking on ok, assuming you can actually hit the silly little X icon, result in a retransfer of the web page
    3. almost none of the web sites understand who you are, so you see them continuously
    4. they appear right in the middle of the (pitifully few words of) text which appear on most web sites
    5. they are difficult/impossible to block across the range of browsers a real user needs
    6. most people, myself included, have no clue what the point of this exercise is

    Sure, I dont want to be tracked - so just dont track me. Dont put pointless garbage on my screen which nobody cares about.

    Honestly, bring back the three year olds !

  • by IamTheRealMike (537420) <mike@plan99.net> on Thursday December 20, 2012 @12:15PM (#42349477) Homepage
    You don't need to be trained. If you hear about this issue and care, you can just search on Google for "how to disable cookies" and get the main browsers help pages right at the top. This isn't exactly rocket science.
  • by liquidpele (663430) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @12:50PM (#42349923) Journal
    Surely every car should have a huge sign on it that reads "This car can be dangerous if you don't know how to drive"
  • by Obfuscant (592200) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @02:33PM (#42351479)
    It's a natural response to a computer system where you have to double click some things to get them to do something and single click others. Why waste time clicking once, waiting to find out that nothing happened, and then have to double click it again?

    Same computer, same mouse, same display, different actions.

    I find this to be an issue even in Linux. My desktop has a firefox icon on the desktop, and one in the taskbar at the top. On the desktop, click twice. In the taskbar, click once. I'm very used to seeing the warning from firefox that there is another instance running ...

  • by frisket (149522) <peter AT silmaril DOT ie> on Thursday December 20, 2012 @03:01PM (#42351801) Homepage

    Setting application preferences is hardly a "skill."

    Oh yes it is. Most users have absolutely no idea you can even do this.

    Do you really have to be a geek to get that far?

    Unfortunately, yes.

A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program in than some that do. -- Dennis M. Ritchie

Working...