6 ms·

I think bringing attention to common practices putting people in jeopardy is a good thing, because it’s likely website operators and the general public don’t th

I think bringing attention to common practices putting people in jeopardy is a good thing, because it’s likely website operators and the general public don’t think about these risks. If data is collected, it can be used by police and prosecutors. Ignoring the problem because everyone knows about analytics does not start necessary conversations. Google has increasingly been a target for law enforcement investigations, and the search warrants Google receives can be as broad as compelling Google to turn over data on the accounts or IP addresses of anyone who Googled someone’s name.[1] [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2017/03/17/judge-grants-search-warrant-demanding-info-everyone-who-searched-certain-persons-name/ https://www.techdirt.com/2017/03/17/judge-grants-search-warr...

ehhthing 4y ago
Shouldn't this be a discussion about how law enforcement search powers are getting out of control, then?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Law enforcement searches aren't the only risk here.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lostlogin 4y ago
  The state controlling reproduction is the alarming bit for me, closely followed by the surveillance creepiness Google enables.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  That’s another worthwhile topic, but since the privacy threat model of a companies selling some types of birth control will be unusual for the foreseeable future, it is also worth talking about in isolation.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    It also isn’t just limited to Google; I wonder how these companies protect their users from payment processor data collection…
- mcculley 4y ago
  Every company in healthcare (and many other industries where privacy is important) needs to know that they should not be giving customer data to third parties.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  It is, but if you're a website operator, it's much easier to not use Google Analytics than it is to convince your government to clamp down on law enforcement search powers.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    Turning this into dichotomy between website operators needing to crusade on government overreach and not using GA has got the be the worst faith argument I've seen in a minute. This entire premise of this article advantage of people who aren't technically inclined and can't know well enough to realize that reverse engineering GA fingerprints is not even close to how the government would de-anonymize visitors. If your local government decides to overreach and find out who's getting abortion pills, Google Analytics will not even be your 1000th biggest problem. ISPs will readily share which sites people visit, the stores themselves will get leaned on, your mail carrier with share where you get packages from. I mean did you even read the article? "Abortion Ease, BestAbortionPill.com, PrivacyPillRX, PillsOnlineRX, Secure Abortion Pills, AbortionRx, Generic Abortion Pills, Abortion Privacy and Online Abortion Pill Rx." What do you think HTTPS is going to do when one of these urls shows up in your traffic, email inbox, and a reverse mail address look up leads to one of these?
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      > Turning this into dichotomy between website operators needing to crusade on government overreach and not using GA has got the be the worst faith argument I've seen in a minute. Putting words in my mouth has got to be the worst faith argument I've seen in a minute. > If your local government decides to overreach and find out who's getting abortion pills, Google Analytics will not even be your 1000th biggest problem. ISPs will readily share which sites people visit, the stores themselves will get leaned on, your mail carrier with share where you get packages from. And it's much easier for website operators to stop using Google Analytics than it is for them to educate their customers on using VPNs and mailing their packages to dead drops (let alone for their customers to actually do those things). This ain't about dichotomies or the lack thereof. This is about what people can do now to mitigate low-hanging fruit. Nobody said the solution is only to stop using GA; literally all that was actually said is that not using GA is something that the operators of such stores can trivially and immediately do. That is: > What do you think HTTPS is going to do when one of these urls shows up in your traffic, email inbox, and a reverse mail address look up leads to one of these? The existence of problems outside your control does not erase the existence of problems entirely within your control. Website operators cannot force you to use a VPN or a secure email or an anonymous address. They can minimize the data of yours they're sending to third parties. > I mean did you even read the article? I mean did you even read the HN guideline specifically prohibiting such a question?

ehhthing 4y ago

Shouldn't this be a discussion about how law enforcement search powers are getting out of control, then?

ceejayoz 4y ago
Law enforcement searches aren't the only risk here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lostlogin 4y ago
The state controlling reproduction is the alarming bit for me, closely followed by the surveillance creepiness Google enables.
bee_rider 4y ago
That’s another worthwhile topic, but since the privacy threat model of a companies selling some types of birth control will be unusual for the foreseeable future, it is also worth talking about in isolation.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  It also isn’t just limited to Google; I wonder how these companies protect their users from payment processor data collection…
mcculley 4y ago
Every company in healthcare (and many other industries where privacy is important) needs to know that they should not be giving customer data to third parties.
yellowapple 4y ago
It is, but if you're a website operator, it's much easier to not use Google Analytics than it is to convince your government to clamp down on law enforcement search powers.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  Turning this into dichotomy between website operators needing to crusade on government overreach and not using GA has got the be the worst faith argument I've seen in a minute. This entire premise of this article advantage of people who aren't technically inclined and can't know well enough to realize that reverse engineering GA fingerprints is not even close to how the government would de-anonymize visitors. If your local government decides to overreach and find out who's getting abortion pills, Google Analytics will not even be your 1000th biggest problem. ISPs will readily share which sites people visit, the stores themselves will get leaned on, your mail carrier with share where you get packages from. I mean did you even read the article? "Abortion Ease, BestAbortionPill.com, PrivacyPillRX, PillsOnlineRX, Secure Abortion Pills, AbortionRx, Generic Abortion Pills, Abortion Privacy and Online Abortion Pill Rx." What do you think HTTPS is going to do when one of these urls shows up in your traffic, email inbox, and a reverse mail address look up leads to one of these?
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > Turning this into dichotomy between website operators needing to crusade on government overreach and not using GA has got the be the worst faith argument I've seen in a minute. Putting words in my mouth has got to be the worst faith argument I've seen in a minute. > If your local government decides to overreach and find out who's getting abortion pills, Google Analytics will not even be your 1000th biggest problem. ISPs will readily share which sites people visit, the stores themselves will get leaned on, your mail carrier with share where you get packages from. And it's much easier for website operators to stop using Google Analytics than it is for them to educate their customers on using VPNs and mailing their packages to dead drops (let alone for their customers to actually do those things). This ain't about dichotomies or the lack thereof. This is about what people can do now to mitigate low-hanging fruit. Nobody said the solution is only to stop using GA; literally all that was actually said is that not using GA is something that the operators of such stores can trivially and immediately do. That is: > What do you think HTTPS is going to do when one of these urls shows up in your traffic, email inbox, and a reverse mail address look up leads to one of these? The existence of problems outside your control does not erase the existence of problems entirely within your control. Website operators cannot force you to use a VPN or a secure email or an anonymous address. They can minimize the data of yours they're sending to third parties. > I mean did you even read the article? I mean did you even read the HN guideline specifically prohibiting such a question?