Danish Data Protection Agency concludes Google Analytics cannot be used lawfully

An important question to ask yourself: _what_ insights?

Want to know which of your pages are popular? Server logs will tell you that.

Want to know how the users move across your website? Server logs can tell you that, albeit in a limited fashion.

Want to know where your users come from? Server logs.

For more advanced use-cases, you may need javascript on the frontend (which you can serve from your own domain, making it harder to block, but still needing to be GDPR compliant, if you serve to GDPR affected users).

We keep a list here:

https://isgoogleanalyticsillegal.com/alternatives

Don't most analytic tools have this? I know Plausible has Search Console Integration.

The Google Ads conversion is the killer feature Google Analytics has in my opinion. But the reality is, most use it because it's defacto and free.

As other posters mentioned, there are numerous GA alternatives, with varying degree of compliance and features.

I can see this on sites without GA just fine. Are there some kind of advanced insights you’re referring to?

There are also some that are open source and can be self-hosted. Those are marked with an "open source" flag.

If you use GA for web analytics it is website operator problem, not Google's.

The US couldn't care less about security. Their approach is "we buy and sell your data and if you are in the US the government can use any and all data at any point for any reason".

European view isn't maximalist in the least. Europe, thankfully, still still remembers lessons learned from data exposure to Stasi police.

More you can find in the NOYB blog post [2]. NOYB is the organization who imitated the complaints towards Google (Analytics).

> While Google has made submissions claiming that has implemented "Technical and Organizational Measures" ("TOMs") [1], which included ideas like having fences around data centers, reviewing requests or having baseline encryption, the DSB has rejected these measures as absolutely useless when it comes to US surveillance (page 38 and 39 of the decision):

> "With regard to the contractual and organizational measures outlined, it is not apparent, to what extent [the measure] are effective in the sense of the above considerations."

> "Insofar as the technical measures are concerned, it is also not recognizable (...) to what extent [the measure] would actually prevent or limit access by U.S. intelligence agencies considering U.S. law."

> Max Schrems: "This is a very detailed and sound decision. The bottom line is: Companies can't use US cloud services in Europe anymore. It has now been 1.5 years since the Court of Justice confirmed this a second time, so it is more than time that the law is also enforced."

[1] https://noyb.eu/sites/default/files/2021-05/2021-04-09_Respo...

[2] https://noyb.eu/en/austrian-dsb-eu-us-data-transfers-google-...

You could have the right to name an asteroid, but it's not an important right.

And you know why they hold that much power? Nobody else made a search engine worth a fuck. That's it. Secondly, integrity. Google actually debugs. Meaning until there's no bugs left. I've seen bugs in everything except Google's software, mostly, don't accuse bugs but can't vouch they have none, either. Makes perfect sense their use of Yubikey led to no account compromises among like 100000 accounts, that and the bug-free software are the fruits of integrity. I mean I'm sure I've seen bugs in Google's software but I don't remember them off the top of my head, unlike Apple since like 2021, whom else, well the whole Solarwinds bitch story, American second-tier tech getting fucked wholesale. What happened to "don't share needles"? Everybody is sharing one needle. That needle is the internet. Like if you must share it like burn the tip very carefully with a lighter and pump drano through it. So that's what Google did. And they're doing it as a public service basically, like not exactly but pretty much, today at least I do buy their argument that it's free so it's not harmful to the consumer. But other days I know it hurts businesses, and everybody gets their money from businesses or taxes on businesses, so harm to business is harm to the consumers who earn their money from that business ultimately.

Exaggerated example: If I would buy a car which by design isn't road legal, and this design flaw would cause an accident killing someone. Normally the carmaker would be responsible. The carmaker couldn't say, well technically, it's only for use in your backyard, but you have to be a lawyer to know that, and our advertising isn't reflecting that at all. Somehow, Google get's away with such logic.

Radio devices are a good example where it fact is illegal to make, sell or import transmitters that do not conform to permitted RF bands.

IIRC in USA there is an exemption in FCC rules if you're importing a device for personal use by e.g. buying it online from abroad (and then you're responsible to use it properly), but if you'd want to resell that device, you can't just transfer the liability to the user, you are responsible for ensuring that the transmitter follows FCC rules.

I also don't think most Europeans are really worried about US government intrusions into their privacy, thoug I don't know the legal implications the CLOUD act would have in this context. Honestly, I think anybody takes US government intrusions for granted after the Snowden leaks. It's the companies people are worried about. Facebook, Google have a scary amount of power and lack of oversight.