3 ms·

You are missing the context. Privacy-respecting analytics should be self-hosted. No one's arguing against an average business using an analytics service, but t

by eps 5y ago

You are missing the context. Privacy-respecting analytics should be self-hosted. No one's arguing against an average business using an analytics service, but that shouldn't be bundled with any "privacy" monickers. If Simple Analytics were pitched as "not a Google Analytics", this would've been perfectly fine. But they insist on the privacy angle and it just demonstrates they don't grok what tracking concerns are about.

sbarre 5y ago
Oh no I get the context just fine. What you're missing is that "should be self-hosted" is outside the realm of the average business, and it's not realistic to put this as some arbitrary requirement to check the "privacy" box. You're clearly a tech person so maybe it feels self-evident or easy for you to do that, just like taxes and law seem self-evident to accountants and lawyers, but the average business owner doesn't have time or money - or the skills - to figure all that out on their own, so they hire a service provider. Do you think accountants and lawyers come to the business and work on their computers exclusively? No, they receive copies of the confidential business data and work on it within their own business environment. And do you think accountants and lawyers don't include "privacy" in their pitch? How is that different from analytics saying "we will keep any data you share with us private, and for your use only". Based on your argument, as a business owner I should purchase and co-locate my own server, because even if I self-hosted my analytics, I'm storing that data on a third party server owned by my hosting provider!
- piaste 5y ago
  Do accountants and lawyers routinely use or sell their customers' aggregated data for commercial purposes? Does US law require accountants and lawyers to give the NSA access to their customers' data upon request, with an automatic gag order attached? If it did, would it still be OK for non-American companies to a US-based accountant or lawyer?
  - sbarre 5y ago
    > Do accountants and lawyers routinely use or sell their customers' aggregated data for commercial purposes? No, and that's the point I was making! It's a fallacy to say "all analytics providers are selling my data". That's not true, it's Google. OP was claiming that any third-party analytics are unacceptable, simply because of how Google operates. That's the discussion in this subthread.
    - eps 5y ago
      > OP was claiming that any third-party analytics are unacceptable Don't put words in my mouth. I was not claiming that. Third-party analytics _that bill themselves "privacy-first"_ are still not what any user would consent to voluntarily, so the "privacy" angle is largely irrelevant. What they should be billing themselves as is "not Google Analytics", which will be factually correct and somewhat relevant.
      - sbarre 5y ago
        >> OP was claiming that any third-party analytics are unacceptable > Don't put words in my mouth. I was not claiming that. You stated that only self-hosted analytics were acceptable. Your exact words were: > The only way to do analytics in a way that's respectful to the visitors' privacy is with an installable on-host software. That's it. This implies - to me - that in your view all third-party analytics are unacceptable from privacy perspective. I'm not sure how else I was supposed to parse that statement? Either way, I disagreed with that, and said it's certainly possible to work with third-party service providers, of many kinds including analytics, while still respecting your customers' privacy.

by eps 5y ago

sbarre 5y ago

Oh no I get the context just fine. What you're missing is that "should be self-hosted" is outside the realm of the average business, and it's not realistic to put this as some arbitrary requirement to check the "privacy" box. You're clearly a tech person so maybe it feels self-evident or easy for you to do that, just like taxes and law seem self-evident to accountants and lawyers, but the average business owner doesn't have time or money - or the skills - to figure all that out on their own, so they hire a service provider. Do you think accountants and lawyers come to the business and work on their computers exclusively? No, they receive copies of the confidential business data and work on it within their own business environment. And do you think accountants and lawyers don't include "privacy" in their pitch? How is that different from analytics saying "we will keep any data you share with us private, and for your use only". Based on your argument, as a business owner I should purchase and co-locate my own server, because even if I self-hosted my analytics, I'm storing that data on a third party server owned by my hosting provider!

piaste 5y ago
Do accountants and lawyers routinely use or sell their customers' aggregated data for commercial purposes? Does US law require accountants and lawyers to give the NSA access to their customers' data upon request, with an automatic gag order attached? If it did, would it still be OK for non-American companies to a US-based accountant or lawyer?
- sbarre 5y ago
  > Do accountants and lawyers routinely use or sell their customers' aggregated data for commercial purposes? No, and that's the point I was making! It's a fallacy to say "all analytics providers are selling my data". That's not true, it's Google. OP was claiming that any third-party analytics are unacceptable, simply because of how Google operates. That's the discussion in this subthread.
  - eps 5y ago
    > OP was claiming that any third-party analytics are unacceptable Don't put words in my mouth. I was not claiming that. Third-party analytics _that bill themselves "privacy-first"_ are still not what any user would consent to voluntarily, so the "privacy" angle is largely irrelevant. What they should be billing themselves as is "not Google Analytics", which will be factually correct and somewhat relevant.
    - sbarre 5y ago
      >> OP was claiming that any third-party analytics are unacceptable > Don't put words in my mouth. I was not claiming that. You stated that only self-hosted analytics were acceptable. Your exact words were: > The only way to do analytics in a way that's respectful to the visitors' privacy is with an installable on-host software. That's it. This implies - to me - that in your view all third-party analytics are unacceptable from privacy perspective. I'm not sure how else I was supposed to parse that statement? Either way, I disagreed with that, and said it's certainly possible to work with third-party service providers, of many kinds including analytics, while still respecting your customers' privacy.