The Second Room Tuesday agreed to a less stringent ‘cookie law’. If the First Room, the legislation also approves, having no permission to be asked for the placement of, for example, analytical cookies.
Cookies that may be used for serving ads or for the linking of social media is not covered by the new exception. The First Room should the law change, yet approve, so it still might take a while before the websites actually no permission is need to ask.
The Second Room also supported a proposal by the PVV to public institutions forcing them to visitors who refuse cookies to access their website. This includes, for example, the Tax authorities or healthcare institutions. Those web sites may not ‘cookiemuur’ raise, which users forcing them to agree to the placement of cookies.
Last year, the cabinet decided that web sites have no explicit permission need to get for the placement of cookies. If a user has a cookiewaarschuwing ignore and continue browsing, may web sites assume that the user gives permission, argues the government. Websites may the disputed cookies, however, only as a user a number of times on the website and has clicked through many websites to ignore that. An amendment of the Dutch political party D66 to this decision of the cabinet to turn back, got it Tuesday, not in the Second Room.
Burgerrechtenorganisatie Bits of Freedom calls it ‘reasonable’ that websites no permission need to ask for the cookies that has no effect on the privacy. The organisation will, however, against the idea that a user agrees to when a website continues to use. “Online tracking is only permissible with the explicit consent of the user,” writes the organization.
Comments
(80)