7 ms·

Plausible Analytics Isn't GDPR Compliant

54 points by ramboram 6y ago

ramboram 6y ago
I've been looking into GDPR and when a cookie consent is needed. In fact, there's no thing called "cookie consent". If you track a user, you have to get his consent before doing it, whether you use cookie consent or now. Ever since I joined HN, there's a lot of marketing going on here from privacy-first Google analytics alternative guys. I found this review showing Plausible and similar products using browser fingerprints and CName cloacking for user tracking, and they still promote those features. I'd like to know your opinion on this. Do I still need to use a consent banner if I use these services? Thanks.
- bmcn2020 6y ago
  If you're tracking a user in the EU, you need consent. The GDPR doesn't cover the 'how' -- just that it needs to be done. So, if there's tracking of any kind, you'll need consent. Applies off site as well -- pretty much every cold email tracking software, like Yesware, is in violation of GDPR, since you didn't get the recipient's consent to track their opens and clicks.
  - mpitt 6y ago
    Consent is one of the legal bases for processing personally identifiable information[1]. There are five more, among which "legitimate interest" can cover a variety of cases. [1] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/#what https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...
    - guillem_lefait 6y ago
      Yeah, but the "legitimate interest" implies that the processing is necessary (because it override your consent). In which context and what kind of analytics is really necessary ? Analysis of the incoming channels ? Understanding if there are some technical problems ? Comparing engagement from different marketing solutions ? I'm working on that market and find that interpretation is quite difficult as soon as you have multiple actors around the table. Example: because recommendations from DPAs are not exactly the same, then you may have different requirements of the same company from different country legal department within the UE.
    - dwheeler 6y ago
      One interesting thing about consent under the gdpr is that users can later withdraw consent, and if that is your only legitimate reason, then you have to get rid of all the related data. It's best if you can show that there are multiple legal bases.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- franky47 6y ago
  > If you track a user, you have to get his consent before doing it This would mean any server-side analytics (looking at access logs, which include IP address and user-agent) cannot be used for analytics or tracking, since there is no way for a user to give/deny consent to a page that already has logged information on them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    If you're tracking an amorphous profile, how do you match the right person to the right data? Do you have to match the data to a unique person?
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    You obtain consent and then you log only if consent was provided. You can essentially use two logs, one for technical purposes (under legitimate interests you should be fine logging as long as those logs are only used for technical/debugging/abuse prevention purposes and the data is not kept for longer than necessary) and one for marketing/analytics purposes. You only log to the second one if consent has been given, and you only ever do your analytics on that second log and not the first one.
    - matthewmacleod 6y ago
      It's also probably a legitimate interest to retain data for marketing and analytics purposes, so long as that retention meets the same sort of guidelines. Marketing is explicitly highlighted as one of the applicable uses for legitimate interest.
      - guillem_lefait 6y ago
        Have you any specific document or decision in mind ?
        6y ago
- mrweasel 6y ago
  I don't have the answer, but the consent banners are interesting. I have two browser plugins: "I don't care about cookies" and "Never Consent", I'm not sure what Never Consent doesn't technically, but the other one just hides the DOM element with the cookie thingy. That means that I never see the "consent" banners so I can't click the "Okay" buttons. I should test to see how many sites just assumes OK to cookies because I didn't click "No". On a positive note I do see more an more sites making it just as easy to say no to tracking as saying yes. Though sites are better at remembering a yes to tracking, compared to a no.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Not sure whether you mixed up I Don't Care About Cookies and the other one, But IDCAC does not just hide the DOM elements - it always gives full consent. From their website [1]: By using it, you explicitly allow websites to do whatever they want with cookies they set on your computer (which they mostly do anyway, whether you allow them or not). Which is fine for me, I use it with Cookie Autodelete, but if you don't, you should be aware of that. [1] https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/
    - mrweasel 6y ago
      Thanks, I used one at some point that just hides the element... Now I just use I Don't Care About Cookies and flush cookies when I close the browser. But yes, something I need to be aware of.
      - Semaphor 6y ago
        Just FYI, tracking is so much more advanced than just cookies. Using IDCAC means you consent to them using any method of tracking you.
- sarnowski 6y ago
  The cookie banners come from the ePrivacy Regulation and are supposed to inform you that the website is storing data on the your device and that you can opt out (not in) of it. Consent is required by GDPR but not for the technical circumstance that you store a cookie but that you use it for profiling. Some lawyers argue that basic web performance is legitimate interest especially in e-commerce, others don’t risk it and ask for consent (which is strictly opt in).
- lucideer 6y ago
  I think a lot of the confusion around the consent banner stuff arises from the 2002 EU ePrivacy Directive (ePD)[0] which long predates GDPR. ePD introduced the idea of the cookie consent banners we see today. While it was enacted in 2002, ePD didn't really start to come into broad legal force in many member states until ~2010ish (EU Directives are not like federal laws; instead they're implemented & enforced by individual member states separately). GDPR's focus on prior consent makes consent banners in their popular format largely useless, but when GDPR came along, the intent was that PD should have been replaced by the accompanying EU ePrivacy Regulation (ePR)[1] to clarify this. ePR has been delayed, so we're in this ambiguous place. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Electronic_Communications_Directive_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Electronic_Communi... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrivacy_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrivacy_Regulation
- donohoe 6y ago
  Not a lawyer, but you do not need a consent banner with their services. This is as much about what information is available AND what you do with it. Browsers send information whether you ask/use it or not. At a high-level (and not necessarily speaking about Plausible here cos I don't know the inner workings), it is ok for a service to use personal information (looking at the IP address here) if in a form that is not traceable back to a user, and not used for tracking individuals. In this case the use of CNAME is fine, its just to stop the blunt blocking of JS etc that happens as a reaction. Its worth noting that GDPR does permit data collection for essential services and (there is some dispute/debate on this) basic site analytics can be considered essential services. In regards to Plausible, they are commenting directly here and seem to be address all these concerns. IMHO the blog post author sees a problem at the surface level but is not an expert - but for those of us more familiar with the legal framework behind this, the exceptions, and the distinctions of how information is used (and supporters of GDPR), what Plausible doing is good and compliant. (To be clear; I'm not affiliated with them - am just supportive of GDPR friendly alternatives like this one)
- KingOfCoders 6y ago
  Cookie consent is (mainly) a different EU directive and not part of GDPR. It will be newly regulated by the - long delayed - ePrivacy directive. "Cookies are an important tool that can give businesses a great deal of insight into their users’ online activity. Despite their importance, the regulations governing cookies are split between the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive." https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  Cookies aren't regulated by the GDPR[0] but instead by the ePrivacy Directive.[1] Article 5(3) of that directive states that "Member States shall ensure that the use of electronic communications networks to store information or to gain access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear and comprehensive information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and is offered the right to refuse such processing by the data controller. This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order to provide an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user." In other words, unless the cookies are strictly necessary to providing you with the service then you must provide users information about what the cookies are used for, and you must offer an opt-out. (It's also worth pointing out the generality of this Directive, too: It doesn't only apply to cookies, but also to things like localStorage). The ePrivacy Directive is, as its name suggests, a Directive which is addressed to member states of the European Union which have all written it in to domestic law. In the UK, for example, it was implemented as PECR[2]. [0] The ePrivacy Directive does reference the old legislation that the GDPR replaces, so you should consider the reference in the ePD to Directive 95/46/EC as a reference to the GDPR. This means the standard of "consent" is the GDPR's standard now. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... [2] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/what-are-pecr/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/what-are-...
nodex-alex 6y ago
Most websites are not GDPR compliant, if you don't like it then lodge a complaint with the relevant regulator.
_the_special_ 6y ago
doesn't the GDPR protect against storing "Personally identifiable information"? Plausible does use the IP address for the visitor to create a unique visitor ID, but it does not store it, so I am not sure how can you use that information to link it to an individual.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  If the algorithm for turning an IP address into a visitor ID is reversible then that ID is equivalent to the IP address as far as the GDPR is concerned.
  - gspr 6y ago
    Nitpick: if it's reversible, determinism doesn't matter.
    - Nextgrid 6y ago
      Yep indeed, deterministic isn't really the right word here. Reversibility is all that matters, although am I correct in saying that it would imply determinism?
      - gspr 6y ago
        > am I correct in saying that it would imply determinism? I don't know, because neither "reversibility" nor "determinism" are precisely defined (this is not criticism of your comment in any way). Here's one semi-reasonable interpretation of the two words for which reversibility would not imply determinism: Imagine a "process" (I, too, am being imprecise and calling this a "process" instead of a function) that takes as input an integer between 1 and 6 inclusive. Its output for the input n is a dice roll with a dice that is biased in favor of n, but is otherwise fair. Now, this is not a deterministic process, but if you are allowed to feed it the same input multiple times, you can probablistically reverse it. Anyway, sorry for the tangent – your original point was the important one.
  - _the_special_ 6y ago
donohoe 6y ago
Plausible Analytics is GDPR compliant - with one possible exception - the IP address which if they dropped the last 3 digits would probably be enough. The blog post conflates general data points with PII. The IP address is considered PII. While other info can be used for fingerprinting, it’s ok to use in some capacity as long as you don’t. For background, I’ve done GDPR implantation a in the past, an a privacy advocate in that sense, and spent more time with lawyers in this subject then I’d care to admit. (Pardon brevity/typos, on phone with unreliable connection)
- corentin88 6y ago
  GDPR states “For data to be truly anonymised, the anonymisation must be irreversible”. So dropping 3 digits is clearly not enough to anonymize PII, it’s more pseudonymization.
  - that_guy_iain 6y ago
    I am curious, how are you going to unanonymise an IP to something that could have 255 combinations (and that's just if you drop that last part on an IPv4). Nevermind that an IP alone is not PII. How can you reverse something that has many possibilties?
    - donohoe 6y ago
      >> IP alone is not PII It is in Europe, despite some regional rulings (Germany?). It is not considered PII in the USA.
      - fmajid 6y ago
        IP addresses are also explicitly considered PII by California’s CCPA. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... (o) (1) “Personal information” means information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. Personal information includes, but is not limited to, the following: (A) Identifiers such as a real name, alias, postal address, unique personal identifier, online identifier Internet Protocol address, email address, account name, social security number, driver’s license number, passport number, or other similar identifiers.
raverbashing 6y ago
I think the article might be reading too much into it Is Plausible actually tracking users? I mean actually allowing you to get a user's history (or IPaddr history) on your website across multiple days? (or a subset of this?) If it does, then yes, it is not compliant without the user agreeing. If it doesn't, then no.
- markosaric 6y ago
  Everything is isolated. There's no way for us nor for our customers to get visitor history across days, across websites or across devices. See https://plausible.io/privacy-focused-web-analytics https://plausible.io/privacy-focused-web-analytics
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    Thanks for clarifying
lez 6y ago
I have the feeling that GDPR and Cookie consent laws themselves, ironically, make harder for the services to provide privacy.
- cuu508 6y ago
  How so? Storing a "user has opted out from tracking cookies" binary flag in a cookie is not the same as storing an unique identifier in a cookie.
KingOfCoders 6y ago
a.) The term "GDPR Compliant" does not exist. All software can be "GDPR Compliant" and still do fingerprinting it there is consent or necessities (hard to do). What they mean is that you do not need to get consent from your users to use Plausible. b.) They don't store IP addresses. Information they gather are not stored in a way to build user profiles or do fingerprinting. It doesn't look like the articles author took a look a the Plausible documentation or source code.
- KingOfCoders 6y ago
  I've was implementation lead for several GDPR implementations in Germany. Only on HN would a comment with facts that clarify a subject where a lot of misinformation exists get downvoted. If you've downvoted that comment you have done the community a disservice.

54 points by ramboram 6y ago

I've been looking into GDPR and when a cookie consent is needed. In fact, there's no thing called "cookie consent". If you track a user, you have to get his consent before doing it, whether you use cookie consent or now. Ever since I joined HN, there's a lot of marketing going on here from privacy-first Google analytics alternative guys. I found this review showing Plausible and similar products using browser fingerprints and CName cloacking for user tracking, and they still promote those features. I'd like to know your opinion on this. Do I still need to use a consent banner if I use these services? Thanks.

bmcn2020 6y ago
If you're tracking a user in the EU, you need consent. The GDPR doesn't cover the 'how' -- just that it needs to be done. So, if there's tracking of any kind, you'll need consent. Applies off site as well -- pretty much every cold email tracking software, like Yesware, is in violation of GDPR, since you didn't get the recipient's consent to track their opens and clicks.
- mpitt 6y ago
  Consent is one of the legal bases for processing personally identifiable information[1]. There are five more, among which "legitimate interest" can cover a variety of cases. [1] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/#what https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...
  - guillem_lefait 6y ago
    Yeah, but the "legitimate interest" implies that the processing is necessary (because it override your consent). In which context and what kind of analytics is really necessary ? Analysis of the incoming channels ? Understanding if there are some technical problems ? Comparing engagement from different marketing solutions ? I'm working on that market and find that interpretation is quite difficult as soon as you have multiple actors around the table. Example: because recommendations from DPAs are not exactly the same, then you may have different requirements of the same company from different country legal department within the UE.
  - dwheeler 6y ago
    One interesting thing about consent under the gdpr is that users can later withdraw consent, and if that is your only legitimate reason, then you have to get rid of all the related data. It's best if you can show that there are multiple legal bases.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
franky47 6y ago
> If you track a user, you have to get his consent before doing it This would mean any server-side analytics (looking at access logs, which include IP address and user-agent) cannot be used for analytics or tracking, since there is no way for a user to give/deny consent to a page that already has logged information on them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- threatofrain 6y ago
  If you're tracking an amorphous profile, how do you match the right person to the right data? Do you have to match the data to a unique person?
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  You obtain consent and then you log only if consent was provided. You can essentially use two logs, one for technical purposes (under legitimate interests you should be fine logging as long as those logs are only used for technical/debugging/abuse prevention purposes and the data is not kept for longer than necessary) and one for marketing/analytics purposes. You only log to the second one if consent has been given, and you only ever do your analytics on that second log and not the first one.
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    It's also probably a legitimate interest to retain data for marketing and analytics purposes, so long as that retention meets the same sort of guidelines. Marketing is explicitly highlighted as one of the applicable uses for legitimate interest.
    - guillem_lefait 6y ago
      Have you any specific document or decision in mind ?
      - 6y ago
mrweasel 6y ago
I don't have the answer, but the consent banners are interesting. I have two browser plugins: "I don't care about cookies" and "Never Consent", I'm not sure what Never Consent doesn't technically, but the other one just hides the DOM element with the cookie thingy. That means that I never see the "consent" banners so I can't click the "Okay" buttons. I should test to see how many sites just assumes OK to cookies because I didn't click "No". On a positive note I do see more an more sites making it just as easy to say no to tracking as saying yes. Though sites are better at remembering a yes to tracking, compared to a no.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Not sure whether you mixed up I Don't Care About Cookies and the other one, But IDCAC does not just hide the DOM elements - it always gives full consent. From their website [1]: By using it, you explicitly allow websites to do whatever they want with cookies they set on your computer (which they mostly do anyway, whether you allow them or not). Which is fine for me, I use it with Cookie Autodelete, but if you don't, you should be aware of that. [1] https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/ https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/
  - mrweasel 6y ago
    Thanks, I used one at some point that just hides the element... Now I just use I Don't Care About Cookies and flush cookies when I close the browser. But yes, something I need to be aware of.
    - Semaphor 6y ago
      Just FYI, tracking is so much more advanced than just cookies. Using IDCAC means you consent to them using any method of tracking you.
sarnowski 6y ago
The cookie banners come from the ePrivacy Regulation and are supposed to inform you that the website is storing data on the your device and that you can opt out (not in) of it. Consent is required by GDPR but not for the technical circumstance that you store a cookie but that you use it for profiling. Some lawyers argue that basic web performance is legitimate interest especially in e-commerce, others don’t risk it and ask for consent (which is strictly opt in).
lucideer 6y ago
I think a lot of the confusion around the consent banner stuff arises from the 2002 EU ePrivacy Directive (ePD)[0] which long predates GDPR. ePD introduced the idea of the cookie consent banners we see today. While it was enacted in 2002, ePD didn't really start to come into broad legal force in many member states until ~2010ish (EU Directives are not like federal laws; instead they're implemented & enforced by individual member states separately). GDPR's focus on prior consent makes consent banners in their popular format largely useless, but when GDPR came along, the intent was that PD should have been replaced by the accompanying EU ePrivacy Regulation (ePR)[1] to clarify this. ePR has been delayed, so we're in this ambiguous place. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Electronic_Communications_Directive_2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Electronic_Communi... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrivacy_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrivacy_Regulation
donohoe 6y ago
Not a lawyer, but you do not need a consent banner with their services. This is as much about what information is available AND what you do with it. Browsers send information whether you ask/use it or not. At a high-level (and not necessarily speaking about Plausible here cos I don't know the inner workings), it is ok for a service to use personal information (looking at the IP address here) if in a form that is not traceable back to a user, and not used for tracking individuals. In this case the use of CNAME is fine, its just to stop the blunt blocking of JS etc that happens as a reaction. Its worth noting that GDPR does permit data collection for essential services and (there is some dispute/debate on this) basic site analytics can be considered essential services. In regards to Plausible, they are commenting directly here and seem to be address all these concerns. IMHO the blog post author sees a problem at the surface level but is not an expert - but for those of us more familiar with the legal framework behind this, the exceptions, and the distinctions of how information is used (and supporters of GDPR), what Plausible doing is good and compliant. (To be clear; I'm not affiliated with them - am just supportive of GDPR friendly alternatives like this one)
KingOfCoders 6y ago
Cookie consent is (mainly) a different EU directive and not part of GDPR. It will be newly regulated by the - long delayed - ePrivacy directive. "Cookies are an important tool that can give businesses a great deal of insight into their users’ online activity. Despite their importance, the regulations governing cookies are split between the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive." https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/
M2Ys4U 6y ago
Cookies aren't regulated by the GDPR[0] but instead by the ePrivacy Directive.[1] Article 5(3) of that directive states that "Member States shall ensure that the use of electronic communications networks to store information or to gain access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear and comprehensive information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and is offered the right to refuse such processing by the data controller. This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order to provide an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user." In other words, unless the cookies are strictly necessary to providing you with the service then you must provide users information about what the cookies are used for, and you must offer an opt-out. (It's also worth pointing out the generality of this Directive, too: It doesn't only apply to cookies, but also to things like localStorage). The ePrivacy Directive is, as its name suggests, a Directive which is addressed to member states of the European Union which have all written it in to domestic law. In the UK, for example, it was implemented as PECR[2]. [0] The ePrivacy Directive does reference the old legislation that the GDPR replaces, so you should consider the reference in the ePD to Directive 95/46/EC as a reference to the GDPR. This means the standard of "consent" is the GDPR's standard now. [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R0679 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... [2] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/what-are-pecr/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/what-are-...

nodex-alex 6y ago

Most websites are not GDPR compliant, if you don't like it then lodge a complaint with the relevant regulator.

_the_special_ 6y ago

doesn't the GDPR protect against storing "Personally identifiable information"? Plausible does use the IP address for the visitor to create a unique visitor ID, but it does not store it, so I am not sure how can you use that information to link it to an individual.

Nextgrid 6y ago
If the algorithm for turning an IP address into a visitor ID is reversible then that ID is equivalent to the IP address as far as the GDPR is concerned.
- gspr 6y ago
  Nitpick: if it's reversible, determinism doesn't matter.
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    Yep indeed, deterministic isn't really the right word here. Reversibility is all that matters, although am I correct in saying that it would imply determinism?
    - gspr 6y ago
      > am I correct in saying that it would imply determinism? I don't know, because neither "reversibility" nor "determinism" are precisely defined (this is not criticism of your comment in any way). Here's one semi-reasonable interpretation of the two words for which reversibility would not imply determinism: Imagine a "process" (I, too, am being imprecise and calling this a "process" instead of a function) that takes as input an integer between 1 and 6 inclusive. Its output for the input n is a dice roll with a dice that is biased in favor of n, but is otherwise fair. Now, this is not a deterministic process, but if you are allowed to feed it the same input multiple times, you can probablistically reverse it. Anyway, sorry for the tangent – your original point was the important one.
- _the_special_ 6y ago

donohoe 6y ago

Plausible Analytics is GDPR compliant - with one possible exception - the IP address which if they dropped the last 3 digits would probably be enough. The blog post conflates general data points with PII. The IP address is considered PII. While other info can be used for fingerprinting, it’s ok to use in some capacity as long as you don’t. For background, I’ve done GDPR implantation a in the past, an a privacy advocate in that sense, and spent more time with lawyers in this subject then I’d care to admit. (Pardon brevity/typos, on phone with unreliable connection)

corentin88 6y ago
GDPR states “For data to be truly anonymised, the anonymisation must be irreversible”. So dropping 3 digits is clearly not enough to anonymize PII, it’s more pseudonymization.
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  I am curious, how are you going to unanonymise an IP to something that could have 255 combinations (and that's just if you drop that last part on an IPv4). Nevermind that an IP alone is not PII. How can you reverse something that has many possibilties?
  - donohoe 6y ago
    >> IP alone is not PII It is in Europe, despite some regional rulings (Germany?). It is not considered PII in the USA.
    - fmajid 6y ago
      IP addresses are also explicitly considered PII by California’s CCPA. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... (o) (1) “Personal information” means information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. Personal information includes, but is not limited to, the following: (A) Identifiers such as a real name, alias, postal address, unique personal identifier, online identifier Internet Protocol address, email address, account name, social security number, driver’s license number, passport number, or other similar identifiers.

raverbashing 6y ago

I think the article might be reading too much into it Is Plausible actually tracking users? I mean actually allowing you to get a user's history (or IPaddr history) on your website across multiple days? (or a subset of this?) If it does, then yes, it is not compliant without the user agreeing. If it doesn't, then no.

markosaric 6y ago
Everything is isolated. There's no way for us nor for our customers to get visitor history across days, across websites or across devices. See https://plausible.io/privacy-focused-web-analytics https://plausible.io/privacy-focused-web-analytics
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Thanks for clarifying

lez 6y ago

I have the feeling that GDPR and Cookie consent laws themselves, ironically, make harder for the services to provide privacy.

cuu508 6y ago
How so? Storing a "user has opted out from tracking cookies" binary flag in a cookie is not the same as storing an unique identifier in a cookie.

KingOfCoders 6y ago

a.) The term "GDPR Compliant" does not exist. All software can be "GDPR Compliant" and still do fingerprinting it there is consent or necessities (hard to do). What they mean is that you do not need to get consent from your users to use Plausible. b.) They don't store IP addresses. Information they gather are not stored in a way to build user profiles or do fingerprinting. It doesn't look like the articles author took a look a the Plausible documentation or source code.

KingOfCoders 6y ago
I've was implementation lead for several GDPR implementations in Germany. Only on HN would a comment with facts that clarify a subject where a lot of misinformation exists get downvoted. If you've downvoted that comment you have done the community a disservice.