Skip to main content

That's the way the cookies crumble

If you have a website, you live in the EU and you aren't the slightest bit nervous about the European Cookie Law, you ought to be. This sounds like a 'Yes Prime Minister' plan by the EU that says we should stop calling biscuits 'cookies' (dratted American influence) and instead have to all call them biscotti. But no, the EU is trying to interfere with the internet.

Cookies, as I'm sure you are aware, are little files that websites use to store information on your computer. Of itself a website has no memory. A cookie lets it keep a note of some information and come back to it next time you visit the site - essential, for example, if you want it to remember what you've put in a shopping basket. The EU has decided, in its overpaid wisdom, that sites using cookies should be forced to ask visitors whether they want cookies to be used.

But isn't this stupid?

It certainly is, on a number of levels. First the EU doesn't own the internet. It really shouldn't attempt to apply this kind of petty jurisdiction. Secondly cookies are pretty harmless and many of us value the way they keep info so we don't have to re-input it. Thirdly every browser has a mechanism to block cookies, so why force the site to offer it as well? (And in principle, from Saturday when the law came into force, this is exactly what is legally required.) Finally, and with a real Sir Humphrey flourish, guess what is the only way a site can remember that you don't want it to use cookies? You guessed it. With a cookie.

Time to panic!

I had vaguely heard of this law, but it didn't really sink in until last week, with days to go. Like most operators of little websites, I have no idea if my sites use cookies, and no idea how to provide an opt-out. It might seem strange that I don't know if I use them, but anyone who uses site builder software like FrontPage or Rapidweaver, or a content management system like WordPress or Drupal (or even Blogger or WordPress for a blog) has no idea if that software is making use of cookies without explicitly mentioning it to its owner. This legislation is fine for big companies with dedicated professionals crafting HTML - it is a nightmare for all the rest of us.

No, no cookies here
So do I use cookies?

Luckily there is a way to find out. Fire up Firefox (if you don't use this browser it's free to download) and visit here to get the 'view cookies' add-in. Take a look at your web pages and when you are on a page, in Firefox select Tools > Page Info. Click on the 'Cookies' tab and it will tell you if your page has any cookies in it.

One place you will always find them is any site that remembers your login information - so if your bank, for instance, hasn't checked if you want cookies, technically they are breaking the law since last Saturday. Naughty banks.

A randomly selected bank breaking the law


What was the outcome?

I was, on the whole, clean. The WordPress login page has one, but unless you make users login, this doesn't apply to them. The only place I did have them was where I'm selling things: as soon as you use, say, a Paypal shopping cart you are loading on the cookies.

Does this mean I had to provide an opt-out?

Luckily, no. There is an exception to the need to offer opt-out if the cookies are being used for an essential function like a shopping cart. I am gradually adding a privacy statement to sites that do this, making the situation clear, but there should be no breach of the law.

So if you have websites, no need to panic, but for peace of mind it might be worth checking what's going on in those pages. Oh, and to think once again, do we really need to be part of the EU?

Image from Wikipedia


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou