The legislation on Cookies was undoubtedly the most talked about news of the web for a long time. In the first week of its application it has already led discussions, protests, resulting interpretations. Many points have been clarified in respect of disclosure requirements, and the Ombudsman himself has published a statement. However, some controversial aspects on the extension of its application, and especially a question that goes beyond national responsibilities: was it really necessary to such a measure?
The clarification of the Guarantor are useful in clarifying the doubts of those who just did not understand what the distinction founding of the standard cookie-functional (or technical) and cookie profiling. Here on Webnews has already been explained, we can only take back the subject with a scheme even more simplified. Posing the question in terms of the obligations and not the technological distinctions, it may be clearer. That’s who is part of the different options of the standard communication visitors of a website.
No Information
If the site releases only cookie technical , operating server-client, there is no obligation. Good conduct is put off to a privacy policy of the site.
Information extended
This information is reproduced in the event of extended cookie analytics own or third-party , which are comparable to the technical ones, as long as the user does not profilino for commercial purposes and do not involve the possibility for the operator of the site to meet the visitor. As explained by the Guarantor, if they are adopted instruments that reduce the power of cookies analytical identification (for example, by masking significant portions of the IP address) in the case is potentially possible by the platform a third crossing with other cookie data profiling.
Information extended more banner pop
The double disclosure, including the infamous banner on the home page, is required when the site releases cookie profiling, or their Third Party . The banner must be a possibility for the visitor to allow the use of cookies the site or be directed to a wide information in which is explained in detail what cookies are used, which have functions, and as possibly communicate to the site or to other sites who do not want to be tracked (anonymous surfing), or as delete or block only those third-party. For this case, and the next you need to block advance cookies profiling – own or third-party – to informed consent. The so-called opt-in .
Information banner over more extended notice to the Authority
If the website uses cookie profiling First Party , ie own and then be able to keep accurate data on individual user behavior to suggest personalized advertising, not only do you have what we learned in the previous case (information and opt-in), as well as notification to the Guarantor , the cost of 150 euro. They are involved mainly eCommerce sites, far fewer bloggers, who generally use third party cookies only due to social button or other tools embeddati the site without having control. For them the rule of double informative but not notified.
The two weak points: the opt-in universal application
Hurry practice of compliance, with a lot of effort and patience ( admittedly) by the leaders of the authority who responded to phone calls and emails with diligence and kindness, and did not fail to reiterate the intention of the rule especially training, two major problems remain in the field. The first is the choice of the opt-in, meaning that the obligation to block cookies profiling to the consent of the visitor. Its opposite is the opt-out, which instead allows the person to know the effects of cookies and go to delete or leave the site. To use a metaphor, it’s as if instead of putting signs on the cameras present in a specific area, one might claim that the rooms would come into operation only after he had read through them.
This task, in addition to being strict compliance with EU Directive (other countries have not applied), is technically cumbersome. Many do not have the slightest idea of how to insert script in the appropriate platform and is difficult to find Google guides and other suppliers of tools they use cookies. Probably even hypocritical: this opt-in at the end is an opt-out masked because the vast majority of people will click compulsively “ok” to all the banners only hoping not to see them again and return to use the site as we knew.
The position of the Guarantor under this point of view is quite rigid:
In this regard, awareness of the constraints existing technology has led the Ombudsman to indicate the period of twelve months to implement the directions contained in the order of 8 May 2014 in order to allow a complete implementation of legal requirements. It is believed that this target, given the wide audience of users and developers of platforms (many open source), can be achieved by applying tools cd privacy-by-design made on the same platform and made available to users and site managers.
The Cookie Law? It applies to all
The point of clarification 6 guarantor authority seems the new edition of a paradoxical webtax . Who in fact (and virtually all companies working in Italy) pointed out that the cookie law has a negative effect for the country because it forces managers of Italian sites at costs that a non-European platform has, is instead reaffirmed the ‘ universal application:
The legislation applies to all sites that cookie, regardless of the presence of a seat in the State , install cookies on terminals users, thus using to treat “equipment situated on the territory of the State” (cfr. art. 5, paragraph 2, of the Code privacy).
In addition to not be particularly clear, this specification appears to open the door to a completely uncontrollable situation , indeed: a total insanity. If, as he says literally the guarantor, “the obligations apply to all sites that install cookies on users’ terminals, regardless by the presence of a home in Italy”, this means not only that a platform Extra EU should block their own cookies and implement the information, but that conversely an Italian who visits a site any foreign (eg booking a hotel in China), should be seen as the norm appear planned in Italy. It is fact that are installed on your browser cookies.
The reason for this is understandable slip: the technical department did not want was to circumvent the rule by inserting a page in the foreign site, but this solution – that seems improvised – really remember the effects of the old webtax unlikely. It might deserve a statement.
What have we done wrong?
By itself the principle of good information to users on navigation is positive, but the combined provisions of a European directive old (2009) and stupid together all’enforcing typically Italian produced yet another standard web that hinders the development rather than encourage it . The reason? What do lobbying in Brussels, but not healthy: since it is not conceivable to put around the table those four browser makers to work on user friendly features – today a tool to allow visitors the chance to block cookies for a site once and easily there is: why? – It was decided to involve millions of sites, stressing the system by discouraging workers the web, confusing consumers. Here is what is our fault: to have a European web-culprits , interested only in defending consumers from abuse and eventually cause it to its worst, earning itself across an indifferent attitude and sometimes a little ‘mean of technology companies.
No comments:
Post a Comment