Hacker News Reader

Comment by tyingq | Hacker News Reader

The big question to me is whether it's enabled by default, and whether it blocks requests to Google Analytics. If so, that's an interesting shot across the bow.

View on HN

You don't need to block Google Analytics to make it more private. You just need to make the user appear to a new user to every site.

So Google may lose data because then they can't track you all over the web, but the websites don't because they still see you as one user.

Maybe I'm overly paranoid, but I assume Google does all sorts of fingerprinting (documented and not) via GA. Why else would it be free if it didn't provide a big upside for Google?

Why do they need fingerprinting? They can just give you an identifier and combine it with your login on the Google sites to connect it to your identity.

Only a limited subset is free. More advanced types of tracking requires the pro subscription.

Isn't it like this that all data is gathered anyway, but site owner can access the more advanced tracers with paid subscriptions?

I don't intent to provoke FUD, I seriously don't know. This would sound like rational choice for Google since they need this data to run their business.

This is actually really concerning to me. If they blocked Google Analytics, it would severely damage that data. It'd be bad news for site owners who just want to quantify their traffic.

....so? Site owners are not guaranteed this access; their script runs on the client computer.

I say this as someone who does a lot of analytical research and re-targeting and would be hurt if this was rolled out on a larger scale; I just don't think I have a right to the data.

Well, if don't care about things that prevent you from doing your job, then what exactly is the point of working in that field?

Imagine you were a police officer with this mentality.

"As someone who investigates lots of crimes, it's totally fine if someone invokes the fifth amendment, I don't have the right to compel them to answer."

"I mean if you don't care about something prevents you from doing your job, why even join the force?"

I don't have to "imagine" anything. Let me invite you to consider the context of my original comment before coming up with ridiculous comparisons.

Doesn't seem that ridiculous a comparison to me. You don't have a right to compel something from someone else, but that doesn't meant you just have to give up at whatever task you are trying to accomplish

When I read a comment, the first thing I do is read the ones above it so I understand the limited scope of the comment. I don't immediately rub my hands with glee and go about compiling a list of situations to which the comment doesn't apply. I guess that sort of thing appeals to some.

Complaining about losing data is in no way the same as assuming entitlement status or forcing someone to do something. The job of a police officer is to enforce laws, and exercise human judgement. The issue with the fifth amendment would be handled by lawyers in courts, not by the officers on the ground. IT jobs have completely different parameters. The comparison with police officer is entirely irrelevant and as such I don't want to continue that discussion.

Kind of presuming the wrong thing there. There's still work to be done, right? Just because something would make the job easier does not mean it should be done, ethics come first.

Um, they were already tracking people, and now they can't (presumably). If ethics were a priority why were they working that job in the first place?

There is nothing unethical about using Google Analytics. I also am not entitled to this access, by the very nature of how it works.

I was guessing that the reason that you did not feel entitled onthe data was for ethical reasons (at least that's how I feel). I also feel it's ethical to use the data, as long as it's freely given.

I think you responded to the wrong person. I didn't claim it was unethical.

They don't prevent me from doing my job. It makes it harder. Oh no, I have to work harder.

Why is it wrong to want to make your job easier? I guess I don't see your point of view..

Why is wrong for people to want to protect something they have of value, from someone else just harvesting it from them? I can see why this is annoying but can you really not see the other side of this situation?

I don't think you quite understand this conversation. I'll prefer to not argue with you any further.

>I don't think you quite understand this conversation.

Pretty sure you should read the remainder of the comments and see which person is having trouble understanding everyone else.

> I don't think you quite understand this conversation.

Looking at the conversation as an outsider, it seems to me you are the one who have things backwards.

I would like it to be easier. I also know that I am not entitled to that. This isn't difficult to grasp for most of HN based on the comments...

The difficult thing to grasp here is your continued insistence that someone claimed they are entitled to something when they did not.

The article says (my emphasis):

> segregate the _cross-site_ scripting data

So if you "just want to quantify your traffic", use self-hosted Piwik (i.e. not cross-site), as many of us do already.

What's the advantage of third-party analytics over self-hosted ones (e.g. GA over Piwik), except for "someone else hosts it for me for free"?

Honest question. I'm not logging anything about my websites' visitors on principle, so I don't have insight into that area.

Welp. Sorry.

Well, back to log files. Which may no longer work with the latest and greatest JS framework :(

I hope it's not enabled by default so it doesn't ruin analytics data for web masters. I personally don't see any reason to turn it on either, so...

Does Analytics do some tracking by default? Or only if you enable the advanced demographics options, which enable DoubleClick?

The fact that it's free for site owners suggests it has some benefit to Google, so I assume heavy fingerprinting and tracking.

What would it block? The JS file? Analytics only sets a cookie on the site using it, not one that works across sites.

Cookies are one way to track users. They are not the only one. Google Analytics is so ubiquitous...I can't see Google missing the opportunity to leverage it.

Speaking of shots across the bow, I'm surprised they've never put an ad-blocker in Safari.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com