3 ms·

> The worst part? Even if you add it immediately, you'll have to wait 2-4 weeks to get a sufficient amount of data. I think this was the problem a product like

> The worst part? Even if you add it immediately, you'll have to wait 2-4 weeks to get a sufficient amount of data. I think this was the problem a product like Heap [1] was designed to solve: just track all user actions, forever, and then assign pipelines after the fact based on what you want to check up on. Don't work at Heap or anything, just love the team and product. [1]: https://heapanalytics.com/ https://heapanalytics.com/

civilitty 8y ago
Any solutions (technical or procedural) that are capable of maintaining user privacy? I don't think "just track all user actions, forever" is going to be a legally defensible solution for much longer, even in the US.
- kornish 8y ago
  Tracking events without user IDs would still allow for aggregate feature usage tracking. Out of interest, what makes you think that an application won't legally be able to record the ways in which a user interacts with that application? Obviously I'm not speaking for Heap; just curious.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    We need case law to settle the matter but in general, the GDPR indicates that if you don't need to collect the data in order to perform the requested activity, you need explicit consent for collecting it, and will be held to a high standard in court if this every comes in to question.
    - kornish 8y ago
      Very good to know. Correct me if I'm wrong - seems like anonymizing the usage data complies with the GDPR, and thus the grandparent post still stands.
      - noir_lord 8y ago
        As long as you anonymise in a way that you can't de-anonymise it should be OK.
        wierd0 8y ago
        >>it seems/should GDPR, I'm hoping that I don't have to bother my users with a "do you consent to" popup when the only thing I want to do is to log server-side the API calls so that I can see patterns in usage and such. If I were to show such a "do you consent to" popup users might mistakenly think I'm one of those techcrunchers with hundreds of data partners that all get to see your PII. I do not want to affiliate myself with those type of actors. Anonymously of course. Should be fine, yeah?
        icebraining 8y ago
        Recital 26: "The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable. This Regulation does not therefore concern the processing of such anonymous information, including for statistical or research purposes." As long as it's not linked to a particular profile ("pseudonymous" doesn't count, it could still be linked), it's fine. https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/
    - methyl 8y ago
      > if you don't need to collect the data in order to perform the requested activity It's about data that can identify a user, not any data. A collection of actions with anonymized user IDs will not allow to identify the user (in most cases), so it's fine to keep it.
    - chriswarbo 8y ago
      Yes, but like the "cookie law" before it, it's absolutely fine to go ahead and do it if it's required (in the case of something like logging aggregate usage counts of APIs, that's easy to justify as a requirement for maintaining a reliable service; it's basic server monitoring). Things like online stores using cookies to track a user's shopping cart across requests are completely fine, yet it seems like legal departments decided to be overly cautious and treat all cookies as potentially infringing. GDPR may be triggering similar reactions. I wouldn't have a problem with that if marketing departments became equally cautious, but they seem to just slap on a banner and carry on as before :(

civilitty 8y ago

Any solutions (technical or procedural) that are capable of maintaining user privacy? I don't think "just track all user actions, forever" is going to be a legally defensible solution for much longer, even in the US.

kornish 8y ago
Tracking events without user IDs would still allow for aggregate feature usage tracking. Out of interest, what makes you think that an application won't legally be able to record the ways in which a user interacts with that application? Obviously I'm not speaking for Heap; just curious.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  We need case law to settle the matter but in general, the GDPR indicates that if you don't need to collect the data in order to perform the requested activity, you need explicit consent for collecting it, and will be held to a high standard in court if this every comes in to question.
  - kornish 8y ago
    Very good to know. Correct me if I'm wrong - seems like anonymizing the usage data complies with the GDPR, and thus the grandparent post still stands.
    - noir_lord 8y ago
      As long as you anonymise in a way that you can't de-anonymise it should be OK.
      - wierd0 8y ago
        >>it seems/should GDPR, I'm hoping that I don't have to bother my users with a "do you consent to" popup when the only thing I want to do is to log server-side the API calls so that I can see patterns in usage and such. If I were to show such a "do you consent to" popup users might mistakenly think I'm one of those techcrunchers with hundreds of data partners that all get to see your PII. I do not want to affiliate myself with those type of actors. Anonymously of course. Should be fine, yeah?
        icebraining 8y ago
        Recital 26: "The principles of data protection should therefore not apply to anonymous information, namely information which does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person or to personal data rendered anonymous in such a manner that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable. This Regulation does not therefore concern the processing of such anonymous information, including for statistical or research purposes." As long as it's not linked to a particular profile ("pseudonymous" doesn't count, it could still be linked), it's fine. https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/ https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-26/
  - methyl 8y ago
    > if you don't need to collect the data in order to perform the requested activity It's about data that can identify a user, not any data. A collection of actions with anonymized user IDs will not allow to identify the user (in most cases), so it's fine to keep it.
  - chriswarbo 8y ago
    Yes, but like the "cookie law" before it, it's absolutely fine to go ahead and do it if it's required (in the case of something like logging aggregate usage counts of APIs, that's easy to justify as a requirement for maintaining a reliable service; it's basic server monitoring). Things like online stores using cookies to track a user's shopping cart across requests are completely fine, yet it seems like legal departments decided to be overly cautious and treat all cookies as potentially infringing. GDPR may be triggering similar reactions. I wouldn't have a problem with that if marketing departments became equally cautious, but they seem to just slap on a banner and carry on as before :(