It's directive day +1, and the world has yet to come to an end. The cookie rapture has not taken place. Well not yet anyway. I am still waiting on my first cease-and-desist order form the ICO - but it still hasn't arrived. But there is plenty of froth in the trade and mainstream press. Let's see what these respected publications made of the EU's absurd directive on its first day of existence.

£500K Fine? WTF? Right, I'm Off!

First up the FT. They receive sensationalist piece of the day. In a piece on the potential impact of the directive, the FT alledges that fines of upto £500K could be imposed on those flouting the soon-to-be ammended law on user privacy:

The way that most companies currently collect information about people who visit their websites – using so-called “cookies” or small pieces of tracking code – will become illegal under the new European Union rules, and punishable in the UK, for example, with fines of up to £500,000 ($813,000).

£500K? Wow. I'm not paying that. And is on the basis of a spot-check? Or will you be given prior warning? Sounds like a sneaky form of taxation. I really hate politicians. Anyway, the FT did make a good point on the guidance given by the ICO. It's totally inadequate - but given that nobody has a clue how this directive will be interpreted it's no wonder we are all confused. And there is a lot of confusion in this market. The publishers and third party buyers I have spoken to are still trying to figure out how this will pan out.

The Rage Continues

Over at NMA the theme of inadequate guidance is continued by Gina Lovett. She is equally scathing of both the ICO and DCMS advice to publishers. While supporting the privacy directive in principle, Lovett rightly highlights the ineptitudes of the Government agencies in providing the appropriate information to the digital media industry before directive day:

But let’s not blame this on the need for online consumer privacy and transparency. While they’re obviously extremely important issues – and it’s only fair to expect companies to let consumers know exactly how they’re collecting behavioural and demographic information online for commercial purposes – the issue is that the Government’s delay in clarifying the legislation and helping businesses develop solutions means online consumer privacy is now held in disregard. It’s associated with a technical and commercial headache.

An Amnesty! Brilliant!

Over at the Telegraph Christopher Williams, Technology Correspondent, informs us all that the ICO is kindly giving the digital media industry a full twelve months to get its house "in order". Thanks. Nice to know we have still have time to adhere to the amended law. What do we need to do again?

The European Reaction

Eh, there is none. Strangely only TWO countries have enacted the directive. Only Denmark and Estonia - superpowers in the European digital media space - have transposed all of the EC measures on internet cookies into their national law. A few other countries have given partial notification. But Germany has remained strangely quiet on the matter. And I hope the European powerhouse will drag its feet a little longer and force a re-think on this idiotic directive. I'd say the main reason for the delay is probably down to the vague nature of the wording around the consent. Consent? What type of consent is required? Is that "prior", "informed" or - in the case of Belgium - written? How do you interpret that? Who came up with this ridiculous directive?

Why We As An Industry Need To Own This Debate

I have to say as an industry we have done a terrible job of owning the debate around anonymous third party tracking. I have seen journalists in our own industry thrash the practice by using emotive words like "creepy" and "stalking" to describe anonymous targeting. And even though the cookie has been an essential part of the internet since the glory days of Netscape, it seems through a lack of understanding and fear-mongering the humble pixel has become the bete noire for an over-zealous privacy lobby.

Few have gone public and championed behavioural advertising - and I think that's pretty disgraceful given the mess we are in now. In fairness Brian O'Kelly had a stab at it when he rightly pointed out at a recent conference that advertising keeps information free. Apart from the AppNexus CEO, I have seen no attempt from senior digital media execs to defend the use of cookies. I don't know whether it was a deliberate strategy on the part of Google, WPP et al to sit on their hands while faceless EU politicians took a jackknife to a £4 billion industry.

This directive is absurd - given the practices in offline data collection. Why aren't these stories being written about in the media? The IAB is doing a brilliant job - but there isn't enough people speaking up for our industry. And now we are lumbered with a damaging law that could wreck a lot of online businesses - and place a huge financial burden on European publishers. It's not too late: let's own/win the privacy news debate. Let's show we as an industry are working hard to defend user privacy. Let's educate the masses on the value of targeted advertising: how it delivers relevancy, and ultimately keeps content free.