[mwexler]

The law is the law as it's written and then as it's reflected in court decisions. We can't choose to do what is defined as illegal just because a FAQ says "we probably won't come after you". That's a risk that many businesses can't afford to take. It's a poorly written law, and as is often the case in laws as knee-jerk reactions to tech changes, throws the baby out with the bathwater. I do think this law shows that we need better tracking mechanisms to meet the needs and expectations of the site owners and the site users, but it shows us by trying to destroy instead of trying to help guide.

[DanBC]

> The law is the law as it's written and then as it's reflected in court decisions.

That's true. While I'd welcome clearer law it's important to point out that it's the ICO who'll be enforcing the law, so if they say they're not going to go after people it's safe to say they won't.

If anything people want the ICO to be a bit tougher - there are plenty of actually dodgy privacy invading practices going on the the ICO seems to be powerless to stop.

> knee-jerk reactions

This law has been a long time in the making. Self-regulation would be ideal. But there are too many operators who are willing to ignore sensible privacy standards for self-regulation to be possible. Unfortunately some of those bad actors are going to ignore any laws.

[ajdecon]

> While I'd welcome clearer law it's important to point out that it's the ICO who'll be enforcing the law, so if they say they're not going to go after people it's safe to say they won't.

Until some group puts pressure on them to enforce against analytics sites. Or the top brass at ICO are switched out. Or a politician makes it their mission for a little while. Or...

"We are making this illegal, but we won't enforce it, really!" is not a trustworthy statement.

[nknight]

> The law is the law as it's written and then as it's reflected in court decisions.

That may not be as true as you think.

I don't really know how the modern UK legal system works in this regard, but in the US, the courts would A) defer to the interpretation of the agency (in this case the ICO) as to what a statute means, and B) greatly frown on any attempt to prosecute without warning people who reasonably relied on the agency's declarations.