6 ms·

Google Analytics opt-out browser extension

37 points by abraham 16y ago

timdoug 16y ago
Or for the mildly more paranoid, block it entirely; just add the following to /etc/hosts: 127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com 127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com
- Rauchg 16y ago
  If you're really paranoid you could be worried about the domain changing anytime.
  - ggrot 16y ago
    Not likely since the j/s is hard-coded into website templates. Even if they did change the domain, very few websites would have the new domain for awhile.
- enomar 16y ago
  Doesn't that slow down and/or break a bunch of sites?
  - davidu 16y ago
    not if you have a server on 127.0.0.1:{80,443}
  - zsouthboy 16y ago
    You should get an immediate Connection Refused if there's no one listening on 80/443.
    - enomar 16y ago
      That still may break sites if the variables that ga.js defines are used outside of a try/catch.
jeffreyt 16y ago
Or just use Ghostery to opt out of Analytics and hundreds of other trackers/bugs. http://www.ghostery.com/download http://www.ghostery.com/download
- orblivion 16y ago
  Or Noscript and opt out of all sorts of things.
csytan 16y ago
Nice. I'm going to be using this for my own low traffic sites. I visit so much that the stats get skewed in favor of FF on OSX.
- terrellm 16y ago
  If it's your site or a site you have access to the Google Analytics for, you can add a filter to exclude your IP.
  - csytan 16y ago
    Good tip, thanks for sharing!
  - JangoSteve 16y ago
    ...which works if you always access your sites from the same IP. I like the idea of using a browser extension (or noscript or something like that) which stays with my computer.
TallGuyShort 16y ago
As often as I think to myself how dangerous it is that I've allowed Google to have so much of my information - I'm constantly impressed by how upfront and ethical they are.
- snprbob86 16y ago
  As long as Larry, Serge, and Eric are in charge, I'll trust Google fully. I just worry that their benevolent legacy won't outlive me...
  - jk8 16y ago
    I don't think I would put Eric in that list. There were some stores about him in the press.
    - callahad 16y ago
      Are you thinking of the "if you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" quote? 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.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to...
      - jk8 16y ago
        No, I wasn't thinking of that quote but now I cannot remember the article. It was around the time Google released Buzz and I think it was he who hinted that how the users got it wrong. Am I wrong to think that it was him who said that?
        jasonlotito 16y ago
        No, but I also don't disagree with him. He was right for the most part. More importantly, nothing has been done to fix the problem. Everyone blamed Google, but few people have actually attempted to fix the problem of privacy, or even offer up solutions. At the end of the day, Google has done more good for privacy then all the users screaming at them.
ryanwaggoner 16y ago
I have all my /etc/hosts for Google Analytics pointing to localhost.
nopal 16y ago
From a site owner's perspective, I don't like this. 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.
- orangecat 16y ago
  don't think Google should give end users a way to bypass the wishes of a site owner 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.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    You don't think users should have control over their own property? 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 :)
akkartik 16y ago
Waaiitaminute.. if I want to opt out from your information-gathering program I have to install something on my computer and constantly run it in perpetuity? <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.)
- not_an_alien 16y ago
  Just disable Javascript, case closed.
  - grinich 16y ago
    How many people actually disable Javascript in their browser? I'm curious, because I find it essential to do almost anything online nowadays. Even voting on HN uses ajax.
    - buro9 16y ago
      I run NoScript in Firefox and only sites I've specified have JavaScript enabled, and usually only for files served by that domain. 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.
    - DrSprout 16y ago
      I use NoScript. HN and GA are both whitelisted.
    - stanleydrew 16y ago
      I use Chrome's built-in javascript blocking. It's simple and gets the job done. Best of all, my whitelist is synced across all my Chrome instances, including fresh installs.
    - 16y ago
not_an_alien 16y ago
Ugh.
davidu 16y ago
While this may be a left-hand doesn't know what the right-hand is doing kind of thing, I don't think this is good. It 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.
Detrus 16y ago
This is how Google builds their brand. To ensure that the insanity around facebook doesn't ever happen to them, they're handing out these tokens to the few thousand people that understand something about technology. 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?
ct4ul4u 16y ago
I'd really like cookie sequestration to be a standard browser feature. By sequestered, I mean that cookies be bound to the domain in the address bar as well as the URL they are served from. So I would have different versions of the Google analytics cookie for every domain I visited.
- txxxxd 16y ago
  GA already works that way.
  - ct4ul4u 16y ago
    Yes, but I'm thinking of the Facebook Like beacon.
kierank 16y ago
Presumably this will also install the Google Updater so you can have 7 updater instances humming away in your task manager at any given time...

37 points by abraham 16y ago

Or for the mildly more paranoid, block it entirely; just add the following to /etc/hosts: 127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com 127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com

Rauchg 16y ago
If you're really paranoid you could be worried about the domain changing anytime.
- ggrot 16y ago
  Not likely since the j/s is hard-coded into website templates. Even if they did change the domain, very few websites would have the new domain for awhile.
enomar 16y ago
Doesn't that slow down and/or break a bunch of sites?
- davidu 16y ago
  not if you have a server on 127.0.0.1:{80,443}
- zsouthboy 16y ago
  You should get an immediate Connection Refused if there's no one listening on 80/443.
  - enomar 16y ago
    That still may break sites if the variables that ga.js defines are used outside of a try/catch.

jeffreyt 16y ago

Or just use Ghostery to opt out of Analytics and hundreds of other trackers/bugs. http://www.ghostery.com/download http://www.ghostery.com/download

orblivion 16y ago
Or Noscript and opt out of all sorts of things.

csytan 16y ago

Nice. I'm going to be using this for my own low traffic sites. I visit so much that the stats get skewed in favor of FF on OSX.

terrellm 16y ago
If it's your site or a site you have access to the Google Analytics for, you can add a filter to exclude your IP.
- csytan 16y ago
  Good tip, thanks for sharing!
- JangoSteve 16y ago
  ...which works if you always access your sites from the same IP. I like the idea of using a browser extension (or noscript or something like that) which stays with my computer.

TallGuyShort 16y ago

As often as I think to myself how dangerous it is that I've allowed Google to have so much of my information - I'm constantly impressed by how upfront and ethical they are.

snprbob86 16y ago
As long as Larry, Serge, and Eric are in charge, I'll trust Google fully. I just worry that their benevolent legacy won't outlive me...
- jk8 16y ago
  I don't think I would put Eric in that list. There were some stores about him in the press.
  - callahad 16y ago
    Are you thinking of the "if you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" quote? 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.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to...
    - jk8 16y ago
      No, I wasn't thinking of that quote but now I cannot remember the article. It was around the time Google released Buzz and I think it was he who hinted that how the users got it wrong. Am I wrong to think that it was him who said that?
      - jasonlotito 16y ago
        No, but I also don't disagree with him. He was right for the most part. More importantly, nothing has been done to fix the problem. Everyone blamed Google, but few people have actually attempted to fix the problem of privacy, or even offer up solutions. At the end of the day, Google has done more good for privacy then all the users screaming at them.

ryanwaggoner 16y ago

I have all my /etc/hosts for Google Analytics pointing to localhost.

nopal 16y ago

From a site owner's perspective, I don't like this. 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.

orangecat 16y ago
don't think Google should give end users a way to bypass the wishes of a site owner 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.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- ErrantX 16y ago
  You don't think users should have control over their own property? 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 :)

akkartik 16y ago

Waaiitaminute.. if I want to opt out from your information-gathering program I have to install something on my computer and constantly run it in perpetuity? <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.)

not_an_alien 16y ago
Just disable Javascript, case closed.
- grinich 16y ago
  How many people actually disable Javascript in their browser? I'm curious, because I find it essential to do almost anything online nowadays. Even voting on HN uses ajax.
  - buro9 16y ago
    I run NoScript in Firefox and only sites I've specified have JavaScript enabled, and usually only for files served by that domain. 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.
  - DrSprout 16y ago
    I use NoScript. HN and GA are both whitelisted.
  - stanleydrew 16y ago
    I use Chrome's built-in javascript blocking. It's simple and gets the job done. Best of all, my whitelist is synced across all my Chrome instances, including fresh installs.
  - 16y ago

not_an_alien 16y ago

Ugh.

davidu 16y ago

While this may be a left-hand doesn't know what the right-hand is doing kind of thing, I don't think this is good. It 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.

Detrus 16y ago

This is how Google builds their brand. To ensure that the insanity around facebook doesn't ever happen to them, they're handing out these tokens to the few thousand people that understand something about technology. 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?

ct4ul4u 16y ago

I'd really like cookie sequestration to be a standard browser feature. By sequestered, I mean that cookies be bound to the domain in the address bar as well as the URL they are served from. So I would have different versions of the Google analytics cookie for every domain I visited.

txxxxd 16y ago
GA already works that way.
- ct4ul4u 16y ago
  Yes, but I'm thinking of the Facebook Like beacon.

kierank 16y ago

Presumably this will also install the Google Updater so you can have 7 updater instances humming away in your task manager at any given time...