Google Analytics opt-out browser extension
tools.google.com
tools.google.com
It's always been possible for a site owner to track certain things via access logs, I think Google should still allow for those basic metrics to be tracked via Google Analytics.
While it's still possible to track site usage via logs, I don't think Google should give end users a way to bypass the wishes of a site owner. If someone is using my site, I believe I have the right to have access to certain usage information. (Insert bit about doing it ethically)
In the past, Google Analytics has been good enough, and I've not felt the need to analyze my server logs. Now I question how popular this plug-in will become, and how it might skew even the most basic and fundamental usage stats.
By providing an all-or-nothing plug-in, Google is hurting those using Google Analytics more than it's helping to ensure people's privacy.
If you think it measures your whole audience you're wrong. People might not finish load the page for example. Or they've ad-blocked the ga.js. Or they are using NoScript. Or they're using an accessibility layer.
It may be the majority of your audience, but I'm fairly sure that even with this add-on/extension that GA will still remain a good indicator of your audience size and your audience habits. That hasn't changed.
That's what I've been doing. I've simply been using AdBlock Plus to prevent anything from Google Analytics from loading. I found that Google Analytics would often take the longest of any element to load, causing my browser's progress bar to spin indefinitely instead of finishing the page. Blocking Analytics entirely got around this annoyance.
In any case, it's nice of Google to provide this to the privacy-conscious.
I think the release of an easy-to-use, official plug-in at a time when people are up in arms over privacy could lead to less accurate statistics.
It's too early to tell whether this plug-in will have a large effect of not. If it is talked about in the right places, it definitely could.
You don't think users should have control over their own property?
If someone is using my site, I believe I have the right to have access to certain usage information.
You have the right to ask for that information. You have no right to compel the user to answer.
Oh, come on there is a limit. I mean; the only reason this is big news is because Google supplies a lot of sites with analytics. If a site uses another service then this opt out is useless (in terms of them not being tracked). Additionally they are providing all this data to the site directly - Google is just the aggregator some webmasters choose.
This is, in fact, about people preferring Google not having their information. Which is a fair enough point (if I visit XYZ.com I don't implicitly agree to provide my data to Google).
I think there is a fair gentlemans agreement in place; whereby website owners have a "reasonable expectation" to be able to see what kind of users are accessing a site. If we start calling that personal information I suspect it will start to turn into a Mexican stand off of users hiding data and webmasters trying to sneak it out of them :)
A friend of mine pointed out a useful metaphor: it is like a customer dressing in baggy clothing, using a ski mask and voice modulator and then sneaking into a shop to buy something with gold pieces - because they don't want to provide demographics to the shop owner. Sure it is their right; but it also doesn't benefit anyone :)
The user has no right to view the site owner's content. The site owner therefore has the right to make provision of analytics data a prerequisite for access to content. No one's bothered to do so because the proportion of people who opt-out is currently quite small.
Agreed. I just object to the imputation that it's wrong to provide users with the ability to not provide that data if they so choose.
If you look at the full quote [0], it's actually quite reasonable and forthright. He's explicitly warning users that search engines, including Google, are subject to inquiries from law enforcement, and thus, should not be considered secure, rather than dismissing privacy out of hand.
[0]: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to...
At the end of the day, Google has done more good for privacy then all the users screaming at them.
(I think I'm being sarcastic.)
But if sites begin to customize themselves for you, show you JPG ads instead of Flash because you are a Mac user that never clicks ads, why would you opt out?
127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.comIt gets very tricky when companies try to be the arms dealers to both sides. You can't advocate privacy and provide privacy tools while at the same time promoting analytics and data-mining tools used because of a lack of privacy. Ultimately, the two sides conflict and the end result is often bad for both sides.
Case in point -- IronPort used to be a company selling spam cannons, and then they started selling anti-spam devices. They quickly realized they had to stop selling the spam cannons if they wanted to be perceived as the anti-spam vendor of choice.
<brain explodes>
I can't wait until mailing lists try this: "To unsubscribe from our list, please send email every 24 hours to keepunsubscribingme@___.com. Here's a webapp to join to simplify the process." or "Would you like Sears to stop sending these coupons to your house? Please send a postcard to ___ every 30 days." Lol.
(Not saying this is a bad idea. What do I know? I'm going to keep it on my radar.)
Actually I think this is the preferred approach.
Obviously an opt-in service (where you have to agree to web analytics) is a UX nightmare and a non starter. We can't expect that of them.
So that really only leaves a cookie; which is easy to delete or lose accidentally turning on analytics again.
A browser plugin is best because:
a) people can see & audit what code is being run
b) there is positive assurance of the opt out
c) you don't accidentally lose the opt out (and thus Google avoids the eventual "angry blog post" associated with that :P)
The website owner chooses to install it on their website. You visit the website, with JS enabled. If you don't like that the website uses Google Analytics, you are free to not frequent the website anymore, or to turn of JS.
Your mailing list or coupon metaphors really aren't the same. Instead, it would be more akin to buying things from Amazon, asking Amazon them not to send advertisements, but getting made when they send you a purchase update for the purchase you made.
A real life example would be complaining to a store about being video taped while you are shopping, and the store using that data to plan a new layout based upon customer habits.
Imagine if you were told you'd keep getting telemarketer calls because 'it's too hard to take you out.' You wouldn't care how valid that argument is.
The prevalence of CCTV is a good analogy, yes. I understand why they need to exist, but they still creep me out. I just go through my day trying not to think about them. I suspect a lot of people do the same. This plugin creeps me out in the same way, it brings up something I'd rather ignore.
I'm curious, because I find it essential to do almost anything online nowadays. Even voting on HN uses ajax.
So I guess I'd count as someone with JavaScript disabled for the vast majority of sites where I am just reading something and not wanting to interact with the page.
http://visualrevenue.com/blog/2007/08/eu-and-us-javascript-d...