'How will the new law on cookies affect internet browsing?' diff viewer (1/2)

This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on April 13, 2012 13:20 (UTC). It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/13/new-law-cookies-affect-internet-browsing

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Previous version 1 2 3 Next version

Version 1	Version 2
How will the new law on cookies affect internet browsing?	How will the new law on cookies affect internet browsing?
2012-04-16 20:41:11 UTC	2012-10-17 15:00:16 UTC (6 months later)
We are being watched. The websites we visit, and the advertisers who promote products on those sites, are tracking our online activity, building a profile of where we go and in some cases what we do when we get there.	We are being watched. The websites we visit, and the advertisers who promote products on those sites, are tracking our online activity, building a profile of where we go and in some cases what we do when we get there.
The computer on which this article is being written has no fewer than 2,901 tracking files (known as cookies) monitoring its online activity, from sites including Google (121 cookies), Amazon (14), the UK government (46) and dozens upon dozens of advertising networks. These track different things: some monitor which sites are visited, some track which adverts are clicked, others store and report back on preferences and favourites on different sites.	The computer on which this article is being written has no fewer than 2,901 tracking files (known as cookies) monitoring its online activity, from sites including Google (121 cookies), Amazon (14), the UK government (46) and dozens upon dozens of advertising networks. These track different things: some monitor which sites are visited, some track which adverts are clicked, others store and report back on preferences and favourites on different sites.
The Guardian site is no exception. Unless your browser's security settings are particularly high – and most users' aren't – the Guardian will have placed several cookies on your computer as you arrived at this article, and its advertisers will have placed a few of their own.	The Guardian site is no exception. Unless your browser's security settings are particularly high – and most users' aren't – the Guardian will have placed several cookies on your computer as you arrived at this article, and its advertisers will have placed a few of their own.
Given virtually every internet user will have hundreds of cookies, and other forms of tracking, on their computer, and only a small proportion will be aware of this fact, cookies present a privacy concern for visitors and site owners.	Given virtually every internet user will have hundreds of cookies, and other forms of tracking, on their computer, and only a small proportion will be aware of this fact, cookies present a privacy concern for visitors and site owners.
This may be less sinister than it might first seem. Most cookies store no identifying information on a user: they are interested only in the behaviour of the person behind the computer, not their identity. Those that do track an identity are usually tied to login functions or preferences on one particular website.	This may be less sinister than it might first seem. Most cookies store no identifying information on a user: they are interested only in the behaviour of the person behind the computer, not their identity. Those that do track an identity are usually tied to login functions or preferences on one particular website.
Still, the concern of pressure groups and users was enough to warrant the EU to look into the issue, and enough to compel it to take action. From 26 May this year, every website operating in the UK will be required to inform its users that they are being tracked with cookies, and to ask users for their consent.	Still, the concern of pressure groups and users was enough to warrant the EU to look into the issue, and enough to compel it to take action. From 26 May this year, every website operating in the UK will be required to inform its users that they are being tracked with cookies, and to ask users for their consent.
Sites which do not comply with the new rules face fines of up to £500,000, levied by the information commissioner.	Sites which do not comply with the new rules face fines of up to £500,000, levied by the information commissioner.
This means sites will have to justify why they need information on their users – explaining which aspects of the sites they use rely on cookies.	This means sites will have to justify why they need information on their users – explaining which aspects of the sites they use rely on cookies.
Leaving advertising aside, cookies fill three major roles on the Guardian's own site, as GNM product manager Piers Jones explains:	Leaving advertising aside, cookies fill three major roles on the Guardian's own site, as GNM product manager Piers Jones explains:
"Cookies do a great job at remembering users' preferences," he says. "If you want to change your default view from the US to UK site, or vice versa, cookies store that preference. Another use is whether you want to see the full site or mobile site from your phone. Cookies also power accessibility options and identity across the site, including on the comment system."	"Cookies do a great job at remembering users' preferences," he says. "If you want to change your default view from the US to UK site, or vice versa, cookies store that preference. Another use is whether you want to see the full site or mobile site from your phone. Cookies also power accessibility options and identity across the site, including on the comment system."
Cookies are also used for user testing across the Guardian – when new components are added to the site, there's often no way to know in advance what way of displaying it would work best. Cookies allow a random sample of site visitors to see it one way, and a different group another. Site administrators can then track which view gets the best response.	Cookies are also used for user testing across the Guardian – when new components are added to the site, there's often no way to know in advance what way of displaying it would work best. Cookies allow a random sample of site visitors to see it one way, and a different group another. Site administrators can then track which view gets the best response.
The third use for cookies is for tracking how a site is used to fuel improvements to it, getting a larger pool of data than focus groups or similar would generate:	The third use for cookies is for tracking how a site is used to fuel improvements to it, getting a larger pool of data than focus groups or similar would generate:
"From my perspective, we're trying to look at the experience people have on the site," says Jones. "Without these cookies, that becomes harder to do."	"From my perspective, we're trying to look at the experience people have on the site," says Jones. "Without these cookies, that becomes harder to do."
Internet tracking is also essential for targeting ads delivered by the big advertising networks, and without such cookies sites relying on these for revenue could be adversely affected.	Internet tracking is also essential for targeting ads delivered by the big advertising networks, and without such cookies sites relying on these for revenue could be adversely affected.
"Cookies ID you when you're on a particular PC and let ad networks build up a profile. This means when you go to another site on the network they build a much deeper ad profile, which means more relevant, and therefore higher priced, adverts can be delivered," explains Ian Maude of Enders Analysis. "The new rules don't spell the death of internet advertising, but could be a handicap to some sites."	"Cookies ID you when you're on a particular PC and let ad networks build up a profile. This means when you go to another site on the network they build a much deeper ad profile, which means more relevant, and therefore higher priced, adverts can be delivered," explains Ian Maude of Enders Analysis. "The new rules don't spell the death of internet advertising, but could be a handicap to some sites."
Maude adds that sites which have login information on their users can build far deeper profiles of their userbase than even cookies allow, and these would remain unaffected by legal changes. This means sites such as Google (for logged-in users) and Facebook's advertising would be untouched, as would that of the Financial Times and similar sites.	Maude adds that sites which have login information on their users can build far deeper profiles of their userbase than even cookies allow, and these would remain unaffected by legal changes. This means sites such as Google (for logged-in users) and Facebook's advertising would be untouched, as would that of the Financial Times and similar sites.
For large sites such as the Guardian, where some advertising is sold directly by advertising teams and the remainder delivered through networks, there could potentially be an effect, but it could be smaller sites that are hardest hit.	For large sites such as the Guardian, where some advertising is sold directly by advertising teams and the remainder delivered through networks, there could potentially be an effect, but it could be smaller sites that are hardest hit.
"Sites with a weak relationship with their audience may struggle, especially if advertising networks are the only way they target their ads. Overall growth in the advertising market should offset the decline, but not for all sites."	"Sites with a weak relationship with their audience may struggle, especially if advertising networks are the only way they target their ads. Overall growth in the advertising market should offset the decline, but not for all sites."
How websites follow the new rules may have a big impact. Some, such as the information commissioner's site, explicitly asks users to tick a box agreeing to accept cookies. Early anecdotal evidence suggests this can reduce the number of users accepting tracking by more than 90%. Other sites, such as bt.com, display a prominent message asking users if they wish to change settings, and saying the default will be to accept everything if not – which experts believe will mean a far smaller portion of users will refuse tracking.	How websites follow the new rules may have a big impact. Some, such as the information commissioner's site, explicitly asks users to tick a box agreeing to accept cookies. Early anecdotal evidence suggests this can reduce the number of users accepting tracking by more than 90%. Other sites, such as bt.com, display a prominent message asking users if they wish to change settings, and saying the default will be to accept everything if not – which experts believe will mean a far smaller portion of users will refuse tracking.
Most sites – including the Guardian – haven't yet revealed how they intend to respond to the changes in law. But however it's done, prominent websites across the UK may find themselves having to explain and justify monitoring they've previously taken for granted – and their future success may depend on how well they do so.	Most sites – including the Guardian – haven't yet revealed how they intend to respond to the changes in law. But however it's done, prominent websites across the UK may find themselves having to explain and justify monitoring they've previously taken for granted – and their future success may depend on how well they do so.
Tracking the Trackers	Tracking the Trackers
But who are the big players tracking us? Help us to identify them and we'll reveal what they're doing with our data.	But who are the big players tracking us? Help us to identify them and we'll reveal what they're doing with our data.
Find out more about the Guardian and cookies	Find out more about the Guardian and cookies
You can get more details on how the Guardian uses cookies on our Privacy Policy and Cookies page.	You can get more details on how the Guardian uses cookies on our Privacy Policy and Cookies page.
Third party cookies used to tailor advertising based on previous web browsing activity can be turned off through the (IAB) Internet Advertising Bureau's consumer site Your Online Choices."	Third party cookies used to tailor advertising based on previous web browsing activity can be turned off through the (IAB) Internet Advertising Bureau's consumer site Your Online Choices."
• This article was amended on 16 April 2012. The original said that all advertising and third party advertising cookies could be disabled through through the (IAB) Internet Advertising Bureau's consumer site. This has been corrected.	• This article was amended on 16 April 2012. The original said that all advertising and third party advertising cookies could be disabled through through the (IAB) Internet Advertising Bureau's consumer site. This has been corrected.
	Comments
	275 comments, displaying first
	13 April 2012 2:09PM
	Let's cut the shit out. Will it make it easier for my gf to find out whether or not I've been looking at hardcore pornography?
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:10PM
	C is for Cooky, that's good enough for me!
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:11PM
	Do Not Track Plus is a very useful tool. Highly recommended although I switch it off for the Guardian because it affects the recommend and response tabs BTL.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:13PM
	That's the exact first thought that I had as well.
	What about..... nah fuck it, I'm off to watch some porn
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:14PM
	>http://www.abine.com/dntdetail.php link to above
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:15PM
	The Guardian site is no exception. Unless your browser's security settings are particularly high – and most users' aren't – the Guardian will have placed several cookies on your computer as you arrived at this article, and its advertisers will have placed a few of their own.
	There's eleven trackers on this page alone. For many users the comments section will not even work unless the Twitter script is enabled. People should install Ghostery if they want to switch the others off.
	But who are the big players tracking us? Help us to identify them and we'll reveal what they're doing with our data.
	Here we go, here's who you have tried to install, Real Media, Audience Science, Facebook Social Graph, Forsee, Google Adsense, Maxymiser, NetRatings SiteCensus, Omniture, Optimizely, Quantcast, Twitter Button. And then of course there's your own cookies that keep us logged in.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:18PM
	Why is it that no user ever has to be asked for permission to install a cookie? There seems to be an established practice that advertisers have a right to invade someone's computer and track their path through the Net without so much as a 'by your leave'. To me this contradicts the premise of ownership and the right to privacy that is established in the real world.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:20PM
	I recommend a plugin for Firefox called Cookie Monster as the best way of managing cookies. That way you can reject them all, then be very selective about allowing only those cookies that are essential for websites you like. Browser controls are usually very basic, as they allow you only to either block everything or nothing.
	(Though I try my best to boycott websites that require cookies to operate in any case.)
	Couple this with NoScript, Request Policy, Better Privacy and Ghostery, and you should feel nice and safe online. I'd also recommend altering the global settings in your Flash player to alert you when websites try to store things on your computer, it's quite an eye-opener.
	This new law is great news, and well overdue. Storing anything on users' computers without their consent is a criminal act, plain and simple. Television managed for decades without personalised advertising, the internet will bloody well just have to do the same.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:20PM
	How many cookies does The Guardian use? I remember one day deciding to ask for permission before a cookie was set and then visiting the site, it took an age to be able to shut the page and reset my options to accept cookies.
	The Click to discover how The Guardian uses cookies link doesn't work for me, it's linked back to this page. It could be my work settings though as I lose format options because of settings outside my control (hurry up and fix the Twitter issue please).
	What happens on sites where the owner has links to Amazon products etc - is the site owner liable or Amazon? And what about people in the UK running websites hosted in the US?
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:20PM
	Chris Cross? I bet he had an unfortunate childhood.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:22PM
	I second Ocoonassa's comment - not only is the Guardian no exception, it's one of the worst offenders. You've got ridiculous amount of scripts trying to snoop on me on your pages. The 'response' feature in the comments has never worked for me as I'm blocking all your spyware.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:22PM
	Derivative 13 April 2012 2:18PM Why is it that no user ever has to be asked for permission to install a cookie?
	@Derivative - check the options in your browser, whatever you're using will have an option to ask for permission before a cookie is set. Then close your browser and come back here. I guarantee you'll be straight back to your options to switch off the permission toggle.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:23PM
	I'm simply a voice for the common man.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:24PM
	I think it is important that we acknowledge in these comments that the Guardian website itself uses cookies in order to improve users' experience on the site, and for digital advertising.
	More details on how The Guardian uses cookies can be found by following the links at the bottom of the article.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:25PM
	will it make it easier for you to find out if SHE is porn-watching ??? Mummy porn anyone ???
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:25PM
	Actually the law came in to affect in 2011 and we were given 12 months to comply before someone may face prosecution. However from the advice the ICO has given I would say that their own site doesn't match up to the requirements of the law, despite what they have done.
	As for Piers Jones saying not using cookies will make some jobs "Harder" he's correct in some scenarios, but in most cases the word "impossible" is better, as the law covers technical methods of implementing something functionally equivalent to a cookie. So the whole A/B testing process described in the article is impossible without cookies, or something that does the same job as cookies in that process.
	The thing that was missing from the thought processes that controlled the emergence of this law is probably some sort of conflation of cookies and personal identity. I can delete all my cookies, and suddenly no one can track my future actions and link them to the past (until I log in somewhere). Yet my identity remains unaffected.
	Either sites will fudge the issues, as the ICO site does with it's session cookie, or we'll be asked about cookies all over the place. Which will make the internet less fun.
	The intention was to stop companies like google knowing everything you do on the net, and in that it will work, however in doing so it will make your life harder unless a serious amount of fudging does happen.
	Plus side for me, lots of work sorting out my clients sites!
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:26PM
	This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
	13 April 2012 2:27PM
	Back to cookies. I recommend that disable third party cookies. These are the ones that track you across multiple sites and build up a profile of your internet use. They serve no practical use to the user and are easily disabled from a browser without installing add-ons and extensions.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:28PM
	The 'response' feature in the comments has never worked for me as I'm blocking all your spyware
	Too high a price for me!
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:29PM
	http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-20042703-285/disable-third-party-cookies-in-ie-firefox-and-google-chrome/
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:33PM
	I suspect that most smaller websites will ignore this directive, if they are aware of it at all.
	If I ran a small commercial website I wouldn't add something that could send users elsewhere, especially if my competitors aren't doing it. ICO won't have resources to enforce it.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:36PM
	The best thing is to guard yourself and not be depended on the good will of the site you're visiting.
	If you use Firefox the addons mentioned in the comment above (Gosthery, Betterprivacy, etc) can be found here:
	https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/privacy-security/
	If you use Chrome:
	https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/home
	If you use Internet Explorer:
	Don't use Internet Explorer.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:38PM
	There seem to me two things wrong with the adverts: they make you feel you're being spied on and they're pointless. Last year, I booked a hotel room in Lyon online and, soon after, the Guardian site (for me) was filled with adverts for hotels in Lyon. Last week, I checked the prices of cartridges for my laser printer, and the next day the Guardian site had adverts for laser printers popping up all over the place. I've set the Browser settings to "do not track", but it seems to have no effect. And it's only with the Guardian. None of the other sites I access, including newspapers and journals, does this. So, as I said, I don't like feeling I'm being watched, even if it's by an impersonal machine, and the adverts are pointless, because I've already booked the room, bought the cartridge etc.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:39PM
	How does the average user (me) distinguish between useful and non-useful cookies - as viewed from my side of the screen? All I see is gobbldygook.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:39PM
	As far as I know,haven't been over there since xmas.
	Hope you're keeping well,good luck at the weekend and next week.
	How long have you used DNTP for?
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:43PM
	Hi BristolBoy,
	I agree, it's really complex.
	This is exactly why I wanted to launch our Tracking the Trackers project - to try to get a better understanding of what some of the more prolific cookies are actually doing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/13/tracking-the-trackers-cookies-web-monitors
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:44PM
	You can't imagine.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:46PM
	Been using it for about 3 months now and not a single complaint. I'm also taking note of some of the programs/add-ons mentioned by posters above. Thanks for the wishes although I think we need Lady Luck standing by with an enormous ladle when it comes to Barca! (and no Norwegians)
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:47PM
	I block all cookies in my browser by default, creating exceptions for websites manually. I also block all third party cookies without exception.
	It's a bit tiresome, but I think it's worth it for the privacy it gives me. The main downside is that a lot of websites are poorly designed, relying on cookies for basic functions but then not giving any indication to the user that they are needed. If this law forces websites to be more upfront with their cookie usage, I'm all for it.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:47PM
	I think it is important to note that the map is not the territory here. Cookies are not the problem, unauthorized and possibly unwanted tracking of user data is. If you ban cookies, advertisers will just store things with html5 web storage. Lawmakers need to educate themselves and really understand technologies so they can make robust laws that protect their citizens rather than playing a game of cat and mouse.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:50PM
	The Click to discover how The Guardian uses cookies link doesn't work for me, it's linked back to this page. It could be my work settings though as I lose format options because of settings outside my control (hurry up and fix the Twitter issue please).
	What’s the Twitter issue? And would like to know if we can get the infographic working for you. It sounds like you might have Javascript disabled.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:51PM
	I worry less about cookies and trackers because of things like Ghostery and DoNotTrackPlus i worry more about thins like this http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:51PM
	It seems to me that it ought to be simple and transparent. Just a few tickboxes we can all see, eg:
	"Do you want to enable cookies that allow you to interact with this website?" "Do you want to enable cookies that allow you to contact advertisers on this site?" "Do you want to enable cookies that transmit information about your computer and the software you use on it to the suppliers?" "Do you want to enable cookies that record your internet usage of this site and others you visit through it?"
	(But there's no chance, really, is there? Download almost any US software and you still -- despite the EU -- have to opt out rather than opt in.)
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:51PM
	If I alter flashplayer settings to "block all site from storing information on tis computer" will I notice any difference?
	Thanks
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:51PM
	@Derivative - check the options in your browser, whatever you're using will have an option to ask for permission before a cookie is set. Then close your browser and come back here. I guarantee you'll be straight back to your options to switch off the permission toggle.
	As an alternative, you can set an option in Firefox to delete all cookies when you close your browser. I also use Ghostery to block all tracking cookies in the first place.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:53PM
	From 26 May this year, every website operating in the UK will be required to inform its users that they are being tracked with cookies, and to ask users for their consent.
	It was 26th May LAST YEAR... but as that date approached, it became clear the rules are utterly unworkable, so it got kicked 12 months down the road.
	And, judging by comments made by the ICO, it'll get watered down at the very least.
	Cookies are an essential part of ecommerce.
	If you're spending money on ads, don't you want to know which ads are bringing in sales? Well, that requires cookies.
	Want to improve your site so more people buy? That requires cookies (if you want to do it properly).
	If you want to keep using cookies, you'll have to offer visitors a choice of opting out... which means hiring a programmer to code this for you. (I don't know of any off-the-shelf free solutions to this.)
	This rule, as it stands, will result in UK websites spending less on marketing and making fewer sales. Which means less tax revenue. Which means more of them going to the wall.
	And for what?
	If people want to block cookies, let them.
	But giving small businesses the choice of the expense of either hiring a coder or giving up all the sales tracking/visitor behaviour data is a kick in the nads for UK small businesses.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:53PM
	must admit since installing adblock plus to Google crome it has stopped this and other sites from bombarding me with adverts
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:54PM
	Good post.
	Although I'm confused with the tone - are you angry with the Guardian for having all those cookies on here?(Apologies if 'having' is the wrong word, I'm not 100% compatible...)
	Is it a choice that the Guardian can realistically make? Whilst it remains a free site, the data they collect from visitors re-equates into revenue, as it's proof for advertisers that you'll be interested in their stuff.
	Would you not prefer to have this site and all the great things that come with it and have them know whether or not you also go to the BBC site too? Or youjizz, or redtube, or eskimotube, or...
	Personally, I don't mind - I like the paper/site too much to argue against them knowing what else I go on.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:55PM
	and.....
	cmmeglobal.com quantserve.com (quantcast)? wunderloop.net (audience sci)? imrworldwide.com revsci.net (audience sci) publishflow.com and more.
	The Guardian is one of the worst offenders. lol Whouda thunk it. Maybe only beaten by The Sun. But is that a surprise?
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:55PM
	Worrying about cookies seems a bit of a diversion when the government is moving to give themselves complete freedom to record and store every email, social networking and other internet or phone activity. When you are serving your sentence for a joke about reprisals on a shoddily run airport, suggesting a riot or a stupid racist remark, i doubt you will be worrying too much about targeted advertising.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:57PM
	From whence came the idea that we should all be able to skulk around the internet in complete secrecy? If I go around my neighbourhood leering at children or pasting hateful things on walls, no one would argue that I should be able to conceal my identity. And if someone actually wants to follow me around the supermarket and take note of what I'm buying, well, it would be weird, but it's a public place.
	Along with the web, this new idea of privacy has evolved, an idea which goes way beyond anything anyone previously expected. Because we access the web from home, the web itself is somehow also taken to be a private space--but it's not, and it shouldn't become that. This voyeuristic attitude towards the web is steering us away from using the new inter-connectivity to its full creative extent: by sharing research, by collaborating on projects, by being able to express ourselves to exactly the right audience as quickly as possible.
	If the concern here truly is rampant marketing and consumerism, I can imagine some much more effective approaches to tackling the nuisance of targeted advertising, characterized as it is by diminishing returns as buyers acquire things they never knew they needed but actually pay for the marketing which ensnared them in the first place. For one, let's consider the ways in which corporations use pandering intellectual property laws to their advantage when it comes to branding and sloganeering, beguiling the rest of us with the specious reasoning that they're trying to create an environment conducive to creation. Maybe it's actually not ironic that the same governments which demand that information must be owned and controlled object to the types of data which can be generated by cookies in the first place.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:57PM
	Lets have a degree of proportionality.
	You can choose through your browser settings to accept/not accept or prompt whether your want to accept a cookie from a website. This has been the case for some time with modern browsers.
	What the ICO through the EU ruling have done is force web developer to now provide an extra prompt through the website code to ask whether you want to accept a cookie, even though you have set your browser to accept them.
	The finger is pointing in the wrong direction here and the EU/ICO are pandering to those people who cannot take the time to understand their web browser and the options that come with it.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:57PM
	She doesn't need cookies to discover that; just looking at your Comment history here will tell her enough to know that you do.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 2:58PM
	I'm in two minds about this. I don't mind sites that I visit a lot (like this one) using cookies to do whatever because I'm ok with the trade, but I don't want that info directly accessed or passed on to anyone else. I dread to think what I'm letting slip through Google but again I don't have a problem where it acts as an intermediary and doesn't pass info on, and I'm pretty blind to adwords and use some ad blocking software.
	Must be some middle group here or we're going from the net looking more facebook to working more like Vista.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 3:00PM
	Ad Blocker Plus and Ghostery - a much more pleasant browsing experience.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 3:00PM
	Great comment and highlights the 'chicken and egg' scenario that the ICO/EU directive has created:
	User A goes to website 1 - they are prompted to accept a cookie which they decline
	How are we to know they do not want to accept cookies from our site without recording that they have said they do not want cookies from our site?
	Stupid.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 3:00PM
	If the new regulations on cookies would get rid of those ubiquitous and annoying MacKeeper / Clean your Mac ads that appear on almost every site I visit (including the Guardian), I'd be all up for it.
	As it is, YOU (the Guardian) and every other site should be taking proactive step to make sure your audience isn't abused by unscrupulous advertisers.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 3:01PM
	I have Firefox set to wipe cookies everytime I close it. This means I have to log into everything each time I use a site, but it is also more secure. I also have history disabled and Flash cookies disabled. Flash cookies always strike me as a lot more sinister than normal ones, and quite a few people don't even know they exist. Flash block is a good tool to have, especially for those rubbish adverts that suddenly play deafening sound when your mouse accidently rolls over them.
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 3:01PM
	any browser has cookie storage settings, just set the preference to delete them all once the browser windo closes, in chrome you can do this on a per tab basis aswell.
	cookies that you want to keep can be added to a whitelist. eg gmail, lastpass etc
	this is really a non story
	Link to this comment:
	13 April 2012 3:02PM
	or just use ad block and forget about it?
	but hey, why not blame someone else for your own ignorance?
	Link to this comment:
	Comments on this page are now closed.
	Turn autoplay off
	Turn autoplay on
	Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off
	Edition: UK
	About us
	Today's paper
	Subscribe
	Websites track visitors' activity, but will legal changes to users' consent make a difference to the Guardian or other sites? Join our Tracking the Trackers project to find out more
	We are being watched. The websites we visit, and the advertisers who promote products on those sites, are tracking our online activity, building a profile of where we go and in some cases what we do when we get there.
	The computer on which this article is being written has no fewer than 2,901 tracking files (known as cookies) monitoring its online activity, from sites including Google (121 cookies), Amazon (14), the UK government (46) and dozens upon dozens of advertising networks. These track different things: some monitor which sites are visited, some track which adverts are clicked, others store and report back on preferences and favourites on different sites.
	The Guardian site is no exception. Unless your browser's security settings are particularly high – and most users' aren't – the Guardian will have placed several cookies on your computer as you arrived at this article, and its advertisers will have placed a few of their own.
	Given virtually every internet user will have hundreds of cookies, and other forms of tracking, on their computer, and only a small proportion will be aware of this fact, cookies present a privacy concern for visitors and site owners.
	This may be less sinister than it might first seem. Most cookies store no identifying information on a user: they are interested only in the behaviour of the person behind the computer, not their identity. Those that do track an identity are usually tied to login functions or preferences on one particular website.
	Still, the concern of pressure groups and users was enough to warrant the EU to look into the issue, and enough to compel it to take action. From 26 May this year, every website operating in the UK will be required to inform its users that they are being tracked with cookies, and to ask users for their consent.
	Sites which do not comply with the new rules face fines of up to £500,000, levied by the information commissioner.
	This means sites will have to justify why they need information on their users – explaining which aspects of the sites they use rely on cookies.
	Leaving advertising aside, cookies fill three major roles on the Guardian's own site, as GNM product manager Piers Jones explains:
	"Cookies do a great job at remembering users' preferences," he says. "If you want to change your default view from the US to UK site, or vice versa, cookies store that preference. Another use is whether you want to see the full site or mobile site from your phone. Cookies also power accessibility options and identity across the site, including on the comment system."
	Cookies are also used for user testing across the Guardian – when new components are added to the site, there's often no way to know in advance what way of displaying it would work best. Cookies allow a random sample of site visitors to see it one way, and a different group another. Site administrators can then track which view gets the best response.
	The third use for cookies is for tracking how a site is used to fuel improvements to it, getting a larger pool of data than focus groups or similar would generate:
	"From my perspective, we're trying to look at the experience people have on the site," says Jones. "Without these cookies, that becomes harder to do."
	Internet tracking is also essential for targeting ads delivered by the big advertising networks, and without such cookies sites relying on these for revenue could be adversely affected.
	"Cookies ID you when you're on a particular PC and let ad networks build up a profile. This means when you go to another site on the network they build a much deeper ad profile, which means more relevant, and therefore higher priced, adverts can be delivered," explains Ian Maude of Enders Analysis. "The new rules don't spell the death of internet advertising, but could be a handicap to some sites."
	Maude adds that sites which have login information on their users can build far deeper profiles of their userbase than even cookies allow, and these would remain unaffected by legal changes. This means sites such as Google (for logged-in users) and Facebook's advertising would be untouched, as would that of the Financial Times and similar sites.
	For large sites such as the Guardian, where some advertising is sold directly by advertising teams and the remainder delivered through networks, there could potentially be an effect, but it could be smaller sites that are hardest hit.
	"Sites with a weak relationship with their audience may struggle, especially if advertising networks are the only way they target their ads. Overall growth in the advertising market should offset the decline, but not for all sites."
	How websites follow the new rules may have a big impact. Some, such as the information commissioner's site, explicitly asks users to tick a box agreeing to accept cookies. Early anecdotal evidence suggests this can reduce the number of users accepting tracking by more than 90%. Other sites, such as bt.com, display a prominent message asking users if they wish to change settings, and saying the default will be to accept everything if not – which experts believe will mean a far smaller portion of users will refuse tracking.
	Most sites – including the Guardian – haven't yet revealed how they intend to respond to the changes in law. But however it's done, prominent websites across the UK may find themselves having to explain and justify monitoring they've previously taken for granted – and their future success may depend on how well they do so.
	Tracking the Trackers
	But who are the big players tracking us? Help us to identify them and we'll reveal what they're doing with our data.
	Find out more about the Guardian and cookies
	You can get more details on how the Guardian uses cookies on our Privacy Policy and Cookies page.
	Third party cookies used to tailor advertising based on previous web browsing activity can be turned off through the (IAB) Internet Advertising Bureau's consumer site Your Online Choices."
	• This article was amended on 16 April 2012. The original said that all advertising and third party advertising cookies could be disabled through through the (IAB) Internet Advertising Bureau's consumer site. This has been corrected.

Previous version 1 2 3 Next version