* Posts by sotar

6 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Apr 2008

Advertisers say new cookie law met by browser settings

sotar
FAIL

It is quite clear!

Unlike the IAB the wording seems quite clear to me.

The change from

<quote>

is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his/her prior consent, which may be given by way of using the appropriate settings of a browser or another application, after having been provided with clear and comprehensive information

</quote>

to

<quote>

... is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information ...

</quote>

The replacement of 'prior' and 'after' with 'having' doesn't change the meaning. My Oxford English Dictionary gives a definition of 'having' as 1. A possession 2. The action or condition of having possession.

It's clear that a user must be in possession of 'clear and comprehensive information' before their consent can be given.

The relegation of using browser settings for giving consent also makes clear that the consent must come first and changing the browser settings is simply one method by which you give that consent.

Lastly it is clear that implied consent for storage/access of information on a user's PC is only allowed if it is strictly necessary to carry out an explicit request by the user. So unless I go to a website and explicitly request to be tracked or advertised at, I can't see any reason why there should be tracking/advertising cookies on my PC.

Start-up Bee pledges 'affordable' British e-car

sotar

E-car subsidy??

Surely the proposed £5000 subsidy is for scrapping your old, old, car and replacing it with with an 'eco-friendly' leccy one.

How does that accord with the statement in the article "Designed primarily as a second car, the One will be pitched at buyers who want a 'leccy vehicle for local use rather than as a replacement for the family motor."

'Mad as hell' news agency declares war on light-fingered sites

sotar

Implied Consent?

According to BT/Phorm (re: Webwise) if you publish something on the Interweb you have given 'implied consent' for others to use it as they wish, including making money out of your hard work.

Is that NOT the case? Or are BT/Phorm going to purchase a licence from AP?

American ISPs already sharing data with outside ad firms

sotar
Coat

The rise and fall of the WWW?

Didn't realise this was already up and running in the USA; stupid really there was bound to be more than just Phorm.

Does anyone have any technical information on how the NebuAd, FrontPorch, etc. systems operate? Do they, like Phorm, look at the contents of webpages?

As a webmaster/publisher I haven't been asked if what is published on my sites can be used by them. I would be interested to know how I can go about opting out of their system, or if necessary restricting/blocking their access to my sites.

Will the last one leaving the WWW please switch off the light.

P.S. Loved this bit on the Front Porch site - http://www.frontporch.com/html/redirection.html - if they had much more control you might as well just sit in front of the screen while they fed you what they wanted (like TV but just 1 channel).

Information Commissioner: Phorm must be opt-in only

sotar

One small step.

Well this seems like a good first step but there is some way to go yet.

First in relation to Richard Buxton's comment about whether opt-out cookies will be required. Surely if the ICO declares that the system must be 'opt-in' then Phorm & ISPs must use 'opt-in' cookies (if using them at all).

The ICO ruling is a complete reversal of how the opt-in/out should be managed and this needs to be reflected in the Phorm/ISP process so that it explicitly checks that someone has ticked a box to say "yes I opt in to Phorm", rather than imply it simply because they didn't opt-out.

If a cookie is to be used then it must only be there if a person has opted in to Phorm. We can't have a situation where someone who hasn't opted-in finds that Phorm is tracking them because for-what-ever reason the webwise cookie has been deleted.

This would also seem to be a legal failsafe from the point of view of Phorm and the ISPs: if an opt-in cookie is absent then they won't track a persons activity so no problem, but if an opt-out cookie is absent then they would be tracking activity and if that person hadn't explicitly opted-in then presumably it would be illegal.

Second, as has been mentioned before, there are two parties involved in web-browsing; the person requesting the information and the website that serves it. The ICO is now saying:

"This strongly supports the view that Phorm products will have to operate on an opt in basis to use traffic data as part of the process of returning relevant targeted marketing to internet users."

it is websites that will be providing this 'traffic data'. There is very little mentioned about how 'opt-in' consent from website owners is going to be handled? I see no reason why my websites should be used to make money for somebody else.

BT: 'We did not let anyone down over Phorm... it was not illegal'

sotar
Happy

BT on C4 news (didn't say it was legal)

Just want to correct some comments above on C4 news item that suggest Emma Sanderson, the BT spokesperson, said their actions were legal. What she actually said was that they had sought both external and internal legal advice; there was no mention of what that advice actually was.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER