New regulations governing the use of website cookies come into force in the UK on 26 May. The new law is an amendment to the European Union’s Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive which will require anyone running a website in the UK to get explicit opt-in consent from their visitors in order to deploy cookies.
The rules governing online business are beginning to vary from country to country and the need to keep track of changes has prompted Eloqua, a marketing automation company, to include a new feature in its software as a service (SaaS) provision.
When the permission request is accepted or rejected, the customer’s database entry is created or updated with the relevant opt-in status.
“So far the UK ICO [Information Commissioner’s Office] is the only government body to put out information about the directive,” Dennis Dayman, Eloqua’s chief privacy officer, told eWEEK Europe. “It’s up to each country how the law is implemented but, if Germany does something different to the UK we can add on and extend out the provision to handle requests from each country in a suitable way.”
Differences in interpretation are already beginning to show with the UK issuing a nine-page document, whereas the Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation will simply allow websites to rely on browser settings to obtain users’ consent to cookies.
Eloqua is offering the new facility as a free add-on to the basic service and it will be turned on when the law comes into effect on Wednesday. Dayman added that most customers have already ticked the box to enrol for the service.
The EC directive has been heavily criticised as hindering European businesses but James Cardew, global head of marketing at Schroders, disagrees.
“Compliance and a positive customer experience go hand-in-hand. Eloqua is helping us make sure our marketing efforts adhere not only to the new requirements, but also to the desires of our customers and prospects,” he said.
Dayman said that the Eloqua will be tracking the regulations and implementing the necessary safeguards as a service to its customers.
“Companies doing business in the European Union are deeply concerned about staying within the bounds of these new requirements,” he said.
Suspended prison sentence for Craig Wright for “flagrant breach” of court order, after his false…
Cash-strapped south American country agrees to sell or discontinue its national Bitcoin wallet after signing…
Google's change will allow advertisers to track customers' digital “fingerprints”, but UK data protection watchdog…
Welcome to Silicon In Focus Podcast: Tech in 2025! Join Steven Webb, UK Chief Technology…
European Commission publishes preliminary instructions to Apple on how to open up iOS to rivals,…
San Francisco jury finds Nima Momeni guilty of second-degree murder of Cash App founder Bob…
View Comments
We are Eloqua's primary partner in continental Europe.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that the new EU directive is a good thing. Some of the underpinnings might be relevant, yet, as usually is the case with these type of things, we're creating just extra regulatory and red tape for businesses, because of over generalization and short sightedness.
Personally I'm pretty pro-European. Mainly because of economic (read: scalability, competition, etc) reasons. But this directive, considering we're living in a flat world, is a typical case of throwing away the child with the bathwater. Rather than facilitating European business and customer/buyer-vendor interaction it is doing quite the opposite.
My business is B2B and we work for B2B enterprises. My comments are directed to that part of the equation. Not the consumer part.
1° The amount of uncertainty that surrounds the conversion of the directive into local legislation (on a per country basis) is too high. This is creating issues for companies that need to invest needless time and energy.
I'd say that if you create a directive then please make sure you manage the conversion/implementation process better. Or that you ensure that your member states also communicate the right way about this.
Stating some (imho too) general and vaguely formulated instructions and then leaving the market hang dry is creating hurdles, costs, inefficiencies etc. At the end of the day it is creating competitive problems. Certainly for those European companies trying to do business outside of Europe or outside their countries.
2° The majority of (B2B) business are adhering to good communication processes. Why create extra hurdles for them by putting them in the same box as consumer targeting websites?
3° I understand that the EU tries to protect the consumer's interest. But what about business' interest? Aren't business ran by people too? Why do EU legislators continue to see businesses as evil forces that need to be refrained? Business, especially B2B business provide real solutions for real problems. We should help connect those 2 parties rather than build walls between them. AT the end of the day this creates employment and consumer well-being.
4° As an entrepreneur I also would like my legislator to protect my interest. I'm not really sure that they're doing this. The internet has been a great enabler for startups and new business models. This type of legislation protects the incumbents and old methods because they have the breathing room to investigate the impact of the legislation without creating too much distraction for their core business. All the others face extra burden. Especially those wanting to go global. I'd be more concerned about certain other practices of the big incumbents than those of innovative start ups that try to get a piece of the pie. Whatever creates competition I like. This directive, for B2B business does the opposite
3° This directive finds its origin in Germany, due to some jurisprudence because one individual thought his privacy was invaded by a company that was dropping cookies on his machine. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.
I would like the EU to better inform the general public, helping put things is perspective, rather than trying to create hurdles or react with knee jerks. How many consumers know what happens with their cell phone data?
3° Technical knowledge: The directive is too vague and it generalizes too easily, making you wonder who actually was part of the scoping process that led to this EU directive. The directive sees B2B websites and consumer targeting transactional websites as one and the same thing. They are clearly not. B2B buyers are not the same as (transactional) consumers.
4° Liability. This type of legislation creates work for law-firms. But whether the interest of the ' buyer's ' are better protected is another question.
5° When the EU email directive was published there was a lot of debate between whether opt in or opt out was the way to go. Stating that this debate is similar is unfair. I believe B2B websites should offer "opt out" capabilities wit regard to tracking.
Compare it to the way B2B companies across Europe have really effectively implemented an email opt in strategy, even though their legislators have been forcing them to. We constantly see big holes in this domain when dealing with our international European customers. Officially these companies are at risk, creating liability and costs to manage that liability. Many of the smaller business stay away from it all, missing them miss the digital train all together. Which might reduce the likelihood they will survive. This is another proof point on how so called consumer protection is creating economic loss. The type of loss that eventually will hurt the consumer.
5° This directive goes against the spirit of where the digital native generation is going. Those future consumers/buyers only want to land and deal with websites that are capable of figuring out what they want. Giving consent before you know what someone has to offer works counter intuitive. By the way Facebook's "like" button takes things so much further than a simple site-tracking cookie. Because it builds a digital profile across several 3'rd party web properties. Here, by definition people do consent to use that tracking mechanism by 'liking', yet few really understand how FB is creating that cross-website digital profile. The EU directive does nothing against that. Tracking cookies that only track someones visits on a (B2B) website are infinitely less harmful, all they are trying to do is improve the communication strategy going forward, trying to avoid spam and irrelevant communications. The directive does not even start to make that distinction
We are not saying we should let the law of the jungle reign. However we are disappointed in the direction this is going.
We at LeadFabric are currently compiling the latest standings, for those that want to stay abreast I suggest you follow http://www.facebook.com/leadfabric
or just drop me an email at kdewitte at leadfabric.com
Regards
K
For those still interested. Seems like we're not the only ones raising concerns
The UK has postponed implementation by 1 year
Other countries are likely to follow:
Except Denmark and Estonia
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/25/european_commission_cookies_directive/