3 ms·

This is not tracking. Could you explain why you think it is?

fanso99 4y ago
Storing a cookie with a counter still requires consent afaik. If I am right, then this technique is not sufficiently different and also requires consent.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Why would that require consent?
  - chriswarbo 4y ago
    Consent is always required; even if you just give people a random UUID, with no associated session/etc., that always requires consent. There is a separate question, of whether consent is implied. If the identifying information is required to provide the user with a service they requested (e.g. a cookie for their online shopping cart), then consent is implied; no need to ask.
    - Hnrobert42 4y ago
      Giving a random UUID and giving someone a counter is significantly different. This is not identifying and thus does not require consent.
- Hnrobert42 4y ago
  I don’t think this would require consent. It is not, as described in the post, uniquely identifying. It is not even pseudononymous. Thus, it is not personal data and does not require consent.
nottorp 4y ago
Could you explain why i should care, considering the current climate online? When you try to cram a list of 500 "legitimate interests" down my throat, I will consider no interest as legitimate. No matter what your goals are, you're in an industry that has zero trust these days.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  Without viable alternatives, sites will continue to use Google Analytics. If people like you fear-monger every alternative, sites will continue to use Google Analytics. The method described in the article collects no personal data, collects no identifiable data, and is objectively more user-respecting than Google Analytics. But the behavior by people like you will help make sure that these alternatives don't gain traction and Google maintains their monopoly.
  - EGreg 4y ago
    Not only that. The ability to track your own visitors is BUILT INTO how the web operates. All a site has to do is include analytics in its server-side library. And that’s it. Doesnt even need CNAME cloaking. It can send the analytics anywhere. The thing ITP and others try to stop is tracking users ACROSS sites. But if you use single-sign-on with FB or any other service, they can get your public photo, name and just find you on faceboon thru some search engine that spidered all profiles. So if you really want to be anonymous, stop using the single sign on and reusing passwords etc.
  - ohbtvz 4y ago
    But google analytics isn't viable. It's illegal to use in the EU. Here's an explanation by, well, a viable alternative to google analytics: https://matomo.org/blog/2022/05/google-analytics-4-gdpr/ https://matomo.org/blog/2022/05/google-analytics-4-gdpr/ (I don't have a horse in this battle - my personal website doesn't have analytics at all.)
  - stalfosknight 4y ago
    How about we just stop tracking users and hoovering up private data?

Storing a cookie with a counter still requires consent afaik. If I am right, then this technique is not sufficiently different and also requires consent.

robertlagrant 4y ago
Why would that require consent?
- chriswarbo 4y ago
  Consent is always required; even if you just give people a random UUID, with no associated session/etc., that always requires consent. There is a separate question, of whether consent is implied. If the identifying information is required to provide the user with a service they requested (e.g. a cookie for their online shopping cart), then consent is implied; no need to ask.
  - Hnrobert42 4y ago
    Giving a random UUID and giving someone a counter is significantly different. This is not identifying and thus does not require consent.
Hnrobert42 4y ago
I don’t think this would require consent. It is not, as described in the post, uniquely identifying. It is not even pseudononymous. Thus, it is not personal data and does not require consent.

nottorp 4y ago

Could you explain why i should care, considering the current climate online? When you try to cram a list of 500 "legitimate interests" down my throat, I will consider no interest as legitimate. No matter what your goals are, you're in an industry that has zero trust these days.

dahfizz 4y ago
Without viable alternatives, sites will continue to use Google Analytics. If people like you fear-monger every alternative, sites will continue to use Google Analytics. The method described in the article collects no personal data, collects no identifiable data, and is objectively more user-respecting than Google Analytics. But the behavior by people like you will help make sure that these alternatives don't gain traction and Google maintains their monopoly.
- EGreg 4y ago
  Not only that. The ability to track your own visitors is BUILT INTO how the web operates. All a site has to do is include analytics in its server-side library. And that’s it. Doesnt even need CNAME cloaking. It can send the analytics anywhere. The thing ITP and others try to stop is tracking users ACROSS sites. But if you use single-sign-on with FB or any other service, they can get your public photo, name and just find you on faceboon thru some search engine that spidered all profiles. So if you really want to be anonymous, stop using the single sign on and reusing passwords etc.
- ohbtvz 4y ago
  But google analytics isn't viable. It's illegal to use in the EU. Here's an explanation by, well, a viable alternative to google analytics: https://matomo.org/blog/2022/05/google-analytics-4-gdpr/ https://matomo.org/blog/2022/05/google-analytics-4-gdpr/ (I don't have a horse in this battle - my personal website doesn't have analytics at all.)
- stalfosknight 4y ago
  How about we just stop tracking users and hoovering up private data?