In holland is now illegal cookies = ad networks, affiliate tracking?

[adultmobile]

In holland is now illegal cookies = ad networks, affiliate tracking?

http://www.debrauw.com/News/LegalAle...fications.aspx
http://www.mondaq.com/x/177768/Telec...otificatio ns
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/ll...isp3_3143_text
http://www.hoogenhaak.nl/news/dutch-...is-amended/913
http://www.dataguidance.com/news.asp?id=1774
http://www.hoogenhaak.nl/news/dutch-...is-amended/913
http://tweakers.net/reviews/2589/weg...-maar-hoe.html

I wonder as so many net companies are setup and hosted in holland (even if real owners elsewhere, traffishop was moving there I see), now all to be moved in other country, the government of holland wishes?
And native dutch there ero-advertising, payserve, freeones , verotel, how this can work without cookies I wonder. Are dutch govt serious.

[Barefootsies]

Interesting indeed fine sire.

[u-Bob]

It's not just a dutch thing. They're simply one of the first to implement a new EU guideline.

another EU success story

[BIGTYMER]

Uh oh. Keep an eye out for the Cookie Police.

[baddog]

[u-Bob]

fines upto 450 000 euros :/

[digitalfantasies]

Yeah.. websites in the EU will have to warn people about cookies, user has to approve of the cookie first.. that is BAD news

I think most affiliate programs also work with url tracking or other solutions for this problem, but still it sucks ass! A big % of sign ups are done due cookies

They are fucking up the internet with those retarded plans

[Slappin Fish]

Britain passed similar law, and it gets worst for cookies...

"Microsoft announced Thursday that the next version of its browser, IE 10, will ship with the controversial ?Do Not Track? feature turned on by default, a first among major browsers, creating a potential threat to online advertising giants."

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...-do-not-track/

[k0nr4d]

"The new opt-in regime applies to all categories of cookies, with the exception of cookies that are strictly necessary to carry traffic data over an electronic communication network or cookies that are necessary for a service that is requested by the user, e.g. cookies that facilitate online shopping baskets."

That's pretty unclear. Are cookies from php sessions considered ones that carry traffic data? By going on a site that facilitates logins, are you requesting a service?

[Tom_PM]

I'm not certain I would worry too much yet because of how easy it is to make your site a nightmare unless cookies are on. I would hate to click "No" upon EVERY page reload, and if it's a site I want to be on, I will click "Yes". This, in effect, makes each visitor a visitor who actually wants to be on your site. So there could be a bright side here.

[u-Bob]

I guess surfers are about to find out just how much those "free websites" rely on ads when webmasters make their scripts return a blank page unless the surfer accepts cookies.

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by baddog

You are sooooo going to jail for that.

[adultmobile]

Dutch govt they should at least release a very technical document with actual code examples and running sites you can visit, who does "Shopping cart" so is not illegal as they said. So you see ok this is legal and this is not level. It looks to me very confusing at the moment which it means no any site will anymore be legally based in holland soon.

[barcodes]

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by barcodes

[u-Bob]

One Dutch socialist politician that championed this bill said that 'collective options' would be ok. So I guess one modal box asking for permission for your entire network would be ok I guess/hope.

[Frank21]

Originally Posted by adultmobile

Dutch govt they should at least release a very technical document with actual code examples and running sites you can visit, who does "Shopping cart" so is not illegal as they said. So you see ok this is legal and this is not level. It looks to me very confusing at the moment which it means no any site will anymore be legally based in holland soon.

That my sir is the exact meaning of all EU laws, so they can be selectively enforced.

[Freaky_Akula]

Make the user experience for Dutch visitors extremely frustrating and do not forget to mention that they have their government to thank for that. Then redirect them to a news article about that law so they can leave a comment about how the new law ruined their internet experience.

[k0nr4d]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

I guess surfers are about to find out just how much those "free websites" rely on ads when webmasters make their scripts return a blank page unless the surfer accepts cookies.

Even that becomes complicated. How do you remember that the user rejected the cookies without using cookies? By IP in a database won't work because alot of ISPs share one ip across several users. You'd have to fingerprint something like ip+user agent+anything else you can find out, store that and then you're probably breaking some other privacy laws...

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by k0nr4d

Even that becomes complicated. How do you remember that the user rejected the cookies without using cookies? By IP in a database won't work because alot of ISPs share one ip across several users. You'd have to fingerprint something like ip+user agent+anything else you can find out, store that and then you're probably breaking some other privacy laws...

if no cookie is set -> display warning page.

So unless they allow the use of cookies, all they get to see is a warning page.

[grumpy]

This is nothing compared to the new IE browser. Default no tracking!!!

[NewNick]

All my sites will soon be NV rather than BV.

It is really not a problem to get around this, and after all the authorities have been ineffective against all manner of blatant law breaking. Card banging, blatant copyright theft, illegal content, malware scams, they all go unpunished. I do not see the internet police all of a sudden enforcing some vague regulation that each member state is interpreting in their own way.

[u-Bob]

Even the EU can't comply with its own cookie law
http://econsultancy.com/us/blog/1001...own-cookie-law

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by grumpy

This is nothing compared to the new IE browser. Default no tracking!!!

If I remember correctly the Do nNot Track feature is nothing more than an extra HTTP request header the browser sends telling the website that it doesn't want to be tracked. It's then up to the site owner to decide what he wants to do.

(correct me if I'm wrong)

[Barry-xlovecam]

This is the result of cross domain tracking by advertising networks -- consumers see this targeting as offensive behavior.

This EU Directive is not in effect yet in Holland -- it is in the UK.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...s-2st-5lb.html

I have spent the past few weeks in preparation for this change -- very sketchy information out there on the Dutch law that is not in effect yet.

It will be interesting to see if the EU type cookie regulations will be adopted in some form by other Western governments.

[HomerSimpson]

web browser cookies are forbidden but hash brownie cookies are still not...

[CyberHustler]

[raymor]

The stupid thing is, the lawmakers seem to think web sites store cookies. It's the user and their browser storing and returning cookies. Any user can easily choose to ignore any cookie requests.

Lawmakers and the public are so easily fooled by "computer experts" (Microsoft) scaring them into doing something stupid to hurt big ad networks (Google). That's what this and IE 10 blocking is - Microsoft setting their browser to hurt a competitor. Never mind that it also hurts Microsoft's own customers. It's more important to annoy Google than to provide a good product.

[DamianJ]

Originally Posted by k0nr4d

By IP in a database won't work because alot of ISPs share one ip across several users.

Tell Lightspeed that.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Ray, no one thinks 'lawmakers' have a real understanding of the web -- they overreact and create dictates to appease their constituents -- we get stuck with their laws.

But they can shut you down with their fines or laws and that is the reality of the entire matter.

This is a public overreaction to the ad networks targeting and tracking cross domain. Had only these 3rd party tracking cookies been addressed by this law it would have no direct affect on our website operations.

Instead they decided to "throw out the baby with the water."

Our cookies do no evil; They aid in website stats and affiliate activities and some specifically enhance the website experience. Our name isn't Google-DoubleClick.

This make sense to you?

Note: Requires Apache 2.0+ with the standard mod_headers, 
mod_setenvif, and mod_rewrite modules enabled.

  

  SetEnvIfNoCase DNT 1 DO_NOT_TRACK
  CustomLog logs/access_log common env=!DO_NOT_TRACK # Location of access log file

All of our stats are done in house now G-A is only legacy history to be replaced where found.

There are a lot of advantages in the EU Data Protection Directive for the EU consumer but this is not one of them the way it has been applied.

We will lose a lot of stats over this if it stands -- better to go after the real culprits ..

[adultmobile]

Dutch law is not in effect today but it will be very soon and anyway by 1 Jan 2013 should be the site to demonstrate they not store private info or site it is automatically guilty.

Ok so I wanted to find some site who is compliant to see how they done it. I checked the alexa NL top 100 sites who are dutch http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/NL , this included all the banks, telcos and even government and no one tells me of cookies, so they have not yet clue how to comply.

The only thing that I found it is a demo in an advertising company, as follows:

http://www.sanomamedia.nl/cookieinfodemo/nu.html

This is quite rude but it should comply... try to click no and it asks you other 2 times... a dutch friend translated, it says: nu.nl wants to place a cookie to monitor surf behaviour to do relevant advertising. Click no? then same text but now advertiser x wants to place a cookie to monitor surfing to make relevant ads. Click no agaibn? third is same text again but now a behavioral targetting party wants to place a cookie (!?).

So I expect the top NL sites to soon all start with such a requester on landing or they all jailed.

As the xlovecam guy said, Uk passed this already and examples seems like he said:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...s-2st-5lb.html

At bottom a semi transparent text: "By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. You can change this and find out more by following this link [Accept Cookies]

The above method is way more reasonable.
Should government even provide the jscript code to use, and certify that's compliant - but euro lawmakers it seems a fail lately (see economy).

If anyone of yours finds how to comply with NL cookie act (for sure, confirmed by lawmakers) please reply/bump here it will be useful for sure.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by raymor

That's what this and IE 10 blocking is - Microsoft setting their browser to hurt a competitor.

Does IE 10 block all cookies by default or does it merely send that DNT header by default?

[grumpy]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Does IE 10 block all cookies by default or does it merely send that DNT header by default?

it switches to private browsing by default, so cookies blocked by default.

[Dirty Dane]

If surfer enabled cookies, then he also accepted use of cookies.

[signupdamnit]

Originally Posted by grumpy

it switches to private browsing by default, so cookies blocked by default.

Looks like either:

1. Sponsors are going to have to increase payouts to compensate.
2. Sponsors are going to have to switch to other models.
3. Affiliates are going to take it up the ass even further. (most likely)
4. Affiliates are going to leave the business.
5. Affiliates are going to switch to other monetization methods.

I know I'm not just going to sit back and send the same traffic and sales but only get credit for 60-70% of what I do now. No way. Once this IE 10 comes out if you don't change something I'm going to try to send the traffic elsewhere or make money from it in a different way.

[signupdamnit]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

If surfer enabled cookies, then he also accepted use of cookies.

That's what common sense would say.

[tical]

This could be a blessing in disguise for sales... with so many cookie stuffing tubes eating up sales other affiliates really produce, I'm kind of curious how it will turn out for the average affiliate.

[livexxx]

duh, use fingerprints https://panopticlick.eff.org/

[garce]

Originally Posted by digitalfantasies

Yeah.. websites in the EU will have to warn people about cookies, user has to approve of the cookie first.. that is BAD news

Does this mean that if you're European and use Facebook or Google, you can sue the fuck out of them - or have their executives arrested - if those sites don't plaster massive warnings about cookies all over the place everytime you try to login to their services?

Didn't think so.

[wehateporn]

Perhaps all CCBill sponsors should switch over to IP Tracking, I believe there's an option in CCBill to do both Cookie and IP tracking, but it's at a cost to the maximum length of tracking time

[Konda]

This law is about "tracking cookies", mainly about third party cookies like tracking user behaviour over various networks etc. Like Google and FB and the big ad agencies do to show targeted ads to users.
You are still allowed to use cookies for your site for log-in forms and shopping carts etc.

For sponsors and tracking sales nothing will change. All of them track fine without cookies. The majority also uses IP tracking + parse along the ref code to the join form. So you don't have to worry about this.

[adultmobile]

Originally Posted by Konda

This law is about "tracking cookies", mainly about third party cookies like tracking user behaviour over various networks etc. Like Google and FB and the big ad agencies do to show targeted ads to users.
You are still allowed to use cookies for your site for log-in forms and shopping carts etc.

For sponsors and tracking sales nothing will change. All of them track fine without cookies. The majority also uses IP tracking + parse along the ref code to the join form. So you don't have to worry about this.

Here we got the optimist. Common sense things are allowed--- only if user click yes to a popup window, theorically for each frame and banner separately too - very user friendly? Also let's track affiliates without cookies as you said, only custom host domains would work really (such as affiliate001.site.com, affiliate002.site.com - if he signup that same landing, not if he return other day), we'll see.

[globofun]

Is it in North Holland and South Holland, or in the Netherlands?

[martinsc]

Originally Posted by barcodes

[Konda]

Originally Posted by adultmobile

Here we got the optimist. Common sense things are allowed--- only if user click yes to a popup window, theorically for each frame and banner separately too - very user friendly? Also let's track affiliates without cookies as you said, only custom host domains would work really (such as affiliate001.site.com, affiliate002.site.com - if he signup that same landing, not if he return other day), we'll see.

You don't need cookies to track affiliate traffic/sales.
Most sponsors have at least two other methods to track the traffic and credit sales to the affiliates (IP tracking and parsing along the ref code), so cookies are really not needed.

Your affiliate links usually look like this: http://secure.paysite.com/track/YourNatsCode/
When a surfer clicks on it his IP will be logged in the database and he will be forwarded to http://www.paysite.com/?nats=YourNatsCode
Then the join links on the paysite also parse along YourNatsCode to the join page.
So when the user joins, the system knows to which affiliate to credit the sale. Either by the parsed along nats code, or by the IP address. And most use server side sessions as well.

You shouldn't worry too much about surfers that do no join right away. There is a huge chance that if they come back a few days later they have already clicked another affiliate link, so you wouldn't get credit for the sale anymore anyway. In addition the majority of the webmaster programs have a hardcoded inhouse linkcode on the warning page, so if the user would get back to the site by typing in the site url he wouldn't be credited to you anyway.

So no, this is not going to change anything.

[adultmobile]

Please you two discuss as you say opposite things (and Konrad developed some my stuff):

Originally Posted by k0nr4d

By IP in a database won't work because alot of ISPs share one ip across several users. You'd have to fingerprint something like ip+user agent+anything else you can find out, store that and then you're probably breaking some other privacy laws...

Originally Posted by Konda

You don't need cookies to track affiliate traffic/sales.
Most sponsors have at least two other methods to track the traffic and credit sales to the affiliates (IP tracking and parsing along the ref code), so cookies are really not needed.

[Konda]

Originally Posted by adultmobile

Please you two discuss as you say opposite things (and Konrad developed some my stuff):

The chance that a user changes IP during the signup process is very small. The chance that someone with the same IP would visit during the signup proces is impossible (an IP is only assigned to one customer at the time).

Only if the surfer does not signup directly and comes back a day or more later you would lose the sale, but in most cases you would have lost him anyway (see my post above). Also the amount of people that do not join directly, and then join within the next week(s) is really really small. This will not have any effect on 99% of the affiliates.

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

I guess surfers are about to find out just how much those "free websites" rely on ads when webmasters make their scripts return a blank page unless the surfer accepts cookies.

exactly, this is a stupid law

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by raymor

IE 10 blocking

IE9 is full of bugs, it is the worst version so far.
I can't even freeze a panel with a wrong mouse move

[grumpy]

Originally Posted by globofun

Is it in North Holland and South Holland, or in the Netherlands?

google is your friend. Its the Netherlands.