3 ms·

> Even Fathom and Plausible analytics struggle with logging activity on adblocked browsers. The simple solution is to respect the basic wishes of those who do

by gizmo 3y ago

> Even Fathom and Plausible analytics struggle with logging activity on adblocked browsers. The simple solution is to respect the basic wishes of those who do not want to be tracked. This is a "struggle" only because website operators don't want to hear no.

reustle 3y ago
As much I agree with respecting folks wishes to not be tracked, most of these cases are not about "tracking". It's usually website hosts just wanting to know how many folks are passing through. If a visitor doesn't even want to contribute to incrementing a private visit counter by +1, then maybe don't bother visiting.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- gizmo 3y ago
  If it was just about a simple count the host could just `wc -l access.log`. Clearly website hosts are not satisfied with that, and so they ignore DO_NOT_TRACK and disrespectfully try to circumvent privacy extensions.
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    Is there a meaningful difference between recording "this IP address made a request on this date" and "this IP address made a request on this date after hovering their cursor over the page body"? How is your suggestion more acceptable than what the blog describes?
    - gizmo 3y ago
      Going out of your way to specifically track people who indicate they don't want to be tracked is worse.
      - vivekd 3y ago
        Google cloud and AWS VPS and many hosting services collect and provide this info by default. Chances are most websites do this including this one you are using now. HN does up bans meaning they must access visitor IP. Why aren't people starting their protest against the website they're currently using instead of at OP.
        gizmo 3y ago
        We all know that tracking is ubiquitous on the web. This blogpost however discusses technology that specifically helps with tracking people who don't want to be tracked. I responded that an alternative approach is to just not. That's not hypocritical.
        joshmanders 3y ago
        Again, you don't answer the question of what's the difference between a image pixel or javascript logging that you visited the site vs nginx/apache logging you visited the site? You're upset that OP used an image or javascript instead of grepping `access.log` makes absolute no sense. The same data is shown there.
        gizmo 3y ago
        It's rude to tell people how they feel and it's rude to assert a post makes "absolutely no sense" while at the same time demanding a response. One difference is intent. When you build an analytics system you have an obligation to let people opt out. Access logs serve many legitimate purposes, and yes, they can also be used to track people, but that is not why access logs exist. This difference is also reflected in law. Using access logs for security purposes is always allowed but using that same data for marketing purposes may require an opt-in or disclosure.
      - jakelazaroff 3y ago
        My point is that your `wc -l access.log` solution will also track people who send the Do Not Track header unless you specifically prevent it from doing so. In fact, you could implement the exact same system described in the blog post by replacing the Python code run on every request with an aggregation of the access log. So what is the pragmatic difference between the two?
  - arp242 3y ago
    > If it was just about a simple count the host could just `wc -l access.log` That doesn't really work because huge amount of traffic is from 1) bots, 2) prefetches and other things that shouldn't be counted, 3) the same person loading the page 5 times, visiting every page on the site, etc. In short, these numbers will be wildly wrong (and in my experience "how wrong" can also differ quite a bit per site and over time, depending on factors that are not very obvious). What people want is a simple break-down of useful things like which entry pages are used, where people came from (as in: "did my post get on the frontpage of HN?") I don't see how anyone's privacy or anything is violated with that. You can object to that of course. You can also object to people wearing a red shirt or a baseball cap. At some point objections become unreasonable.
  - reustle 3y ago
    > a simple count the host could just `wc -l access.log` Tons of very simple hosts, like Github Pages, don't give access to detailed info like that (and that's totally fine).
anonymouse008 3y ago
I don't know how I feel about this overall. I think we took some rules from the physical world that we liked and discarded others that we've ended up with a cognitively dissonant space. For example, if you walked into my coffee shop, I would be able to lay eyes on you and count your visits for the week. I could also observe were you sit and how long you stay. If I were to better serve you with these data points, by reserving your table before you arrive with your order ready, you'd probably welcome my attention to detail. However, if I were to see you pulled about x number of watts a month from my outlets, then locked up the outlets for a fee suddenly - then you'd rightfully wish to never be observed again. So what I'm getting at is, the issues with tracking appear to be with the perverse assholes vs. the benevolent shopkeeps of the tracking. To wrap up this thought: what's happening now though is a stalker is following us into every store, watching our every move. In physical space, we'd have this person arrested and assigned a restraining order with severe consequences. However, instead of holding those creeps accountable, we've punished the small businesses that just want to serve us. -- I don't know how I feel about this or really what to do.
- croniev 3y ago
  The coffe shop reserving my place and having my order ready before I arrive sounds nice - but is it not an innecessary luxury, that I would not miss had I never even thought of its possibility? I never asked for it, I was ready to stand in line for my order, and the tracking of my behavior resulted in a pleasant surprise, not a feature I was hoping for. If I really wanted my order to be ready when I arrive, then I would provide the information to you, not expect that you observe me to figute it out. My point is that I don't get why the small businesses should have the right to track me to offer me better services that I never even asked for. Sure, its nice, but its not worth deregulating tracking and allowing all the evil corps to track me too.
  - joshmanders 3y ago
    Here's a better analogy using the coffee shop: You walk into your favorite coffee shop, order your favorite coffee, every day. But because of privacy reasons the coffeeshop owner is unaware of anything. Doesn't even track inventory, just orders whatever whenever. One day you walk in and now you can't get your favorite coffee... Because the owner decided to remove that item from the menu. You get mad, "Where's my favorite coffee?" the barista says "owner removed it from menu" and you get even more upset "Why? Don't you know I come in here every day and order the same thing?!" Nope, because you don't want any amount of tracking whatesoever, knowing any type of habits from visitors is wrong! But in this scenario you deem the owner knowing that you order that coffee every day ensures that it never leaves the menu, so you actually do like tracking.
OhMeadhbh 3y ago
I have, unfortunately, become cynical in my old age. Don't take this the wrong way, but... <cynical_statement> The purpose of the web is to distribute ads. The "struggle" is with people who think we made this infrastructure so you could share recipes with your grand-mother. </cynical_statement>
- gizmo 3y ago
  No matter how bad the web gets, it can still get worse. Things can always get worse. That's why I'm not a cynic. Even when the fight is hopeless --and I don't believe it is-- delaying the inevitable is still worthwhile.
- al_borland 3y ago
  The infrastructure was put in place for people to freely share information. The ads only came once people started spending their time online and that's where the eyeballs were. The interstate highway system in the US wasn't build with the intent of advertising to people, it was to move people and goods around (and maybe provide a means to move around the military on the ground when needed). Once there were a lot of eyes flying down the interstate, the billboard was used to advertise to those people. The same thing happened with the newspaper, magazines, radio, TV, and YouTube. The technology comes first and the ads come with popularity and as a means to keep it low cost. We're seeing that now with Netflix as well. I'm actually a little surprised that books don't come with ads throughout them... maybe the longevity of the medium makes ads impractical.
- digging 3y ago
  Hm, I don't think that's the purpose of the web. It's just the most common use case.

by gizmo 3y ago

reustle 3y ago

As much I agree with respecting folks wishes to not be tracked, most of these cases are not about "tracking". It's usually website hosts just wanting to know how many folks are passing through. If a visitor doesn't even want to contribute to incrementing a private visit counter by +1, then maybe don't bother visiting.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gizmo 3y ago
If it was just about a simple count the host could just `wc -l access.log`. Clearly website hosts are not satisfied with that, and so they ignore DO_NOT_TRACK and disrespectfully try to circumvent privacy extensions.
- jakelazaroff 3y ago
  Is there a meaningful difference between recording "this IP address made a request on this date" and "this IP address made a request on this date after hovering their cursor over the page body"? How is your suggestion more acceptable than what the blog describes?
  - gizmo 3y ago
    Going out of your way to specifically track people who indicate they don't want to be tracked is worse.
    - vivekd 3y ago
      Google cloud and AWS VPS and many hosting services collect and provide this info by default. Chances are most websites do this including this one you are using now. HN does up bans meaning they must access visitor IP. Why aren't people starting their protest against the website they're currently using instead of at OP.
      - gizmo 3y ago
        We all know that tracking is ubiquitous on the web. This blogpost however discusses technology that specifically helps with tracking people who don't want to be tracked. I responded that an alternative approach is to just not. That's not hypocritical.
        joshmanders 3y ago
        Again, you don't answer the question of what's the difference between a image pixel or javascript logging that you visited the site vs nginx/apache logging you visited the site? You're upset that OP used an image or javascript instead of grepping `access.log` makes absolute no sense. The same data is shown there.
        gizmo 3y ago
        It's rude to tell people how they feel and it's rude to assert a post makes "absolutely no sense" while at the same time demanding a response. One difference is intent. When you build an analytics system you have an obligation to let people opt out. Access logs serve many legitimate purposes, and yes, they can also be used to track people, but that is not why access logs exist. This difference is also reflected in law. Using access logs for security purposes is always allowed but using that same data for marketing purposes may require an opt-in or disclosure.
    - jakelazaroff 3y ago
      My point is that your `wc -l access.log` solution will also track people who send the Do Not Track header unless you specifically prevent it from doing so. In fact, you could implement the exact same system described in the blog post by replacing the Python code run on every request with an aggregation of the access log. So what is the pragmatic difference between the two?
- arp242 3y ago
  > If it was just about a simple count the host could just `wc -l access.log` That doesn't really work because huge amount of traffic is from 1) bots, 2) prefetches and other things that shouldn't be counted, 3) the same person loading the page 5 times, visiting every page on the site, etc. In short, these numbers will be wildly wrong (and in my experience "how wrong" can also differ quite a bit per site and over time, depending on factors that are not very obvious). What people want is a simple break-down of useful things like which entry pages are used, where people came from (as in: "did my post get on the frontpage of HN?") I don't see how anyone's privacy or anything is violated with that. You can object to that of course. You can also object to people wearing a red shirt or a baseball cap. At some point objections become unreasonable.
- reustle 3y ago
  > a simple count the host could just `wc -l access.log` Tons of very simple hosts, like Github Pages, don't give access to detailed info like that (and that's totally fine).

anonymouse008 3y ago

I don't know how I feel about this overall. I think we took some rules from the physical world that we liked and discarded others that we've ended up with a cognitively dissonant space. For example, if you walked into my coffee shop, I would be able to lay eyes on you and count your visits for the week. I could also observe were you sit and how long you stay. If I were to better serve you with these data points, by reserving your table before you arrive with your order ready, you'd probably welcome my attention to detail. However, if I were to see you pulled about x number of watts a month from my outlets, then locked up the outlets for a fee suddenly - then you'd rightfully wish to never be observed again. So what I'm getting at is, the issues with tracking appear to be with the perverse assholes vs. the benevolent shopkeeps of the tracking. To wrap up this thought: what's happening now though is a stalker is following us into every store, watching our every move. In physical space, we'd have this person arrested and assigned a restraining order with severe consequences. However, instead of holding those creeps accountable, we've punished the small businesses that just want to serve us. -- I don't know how I feel about this or really what to do.

croniev 3y ago
The coffe shop reserving my place and having my order ready before I arrive sounds nice - but is it not an innecessary luxury, that I would not miss had I never even thought of its possibility? I never asked for it, I was ready to stand in line for my order, and the tracking of my behavior resulted in a pleasant surprise, not a feature I was hoping for. If I really wanted my order to be ready when I arrive, then I would provide the information to you, not expect that you observe me to figute it out. My point is that I don't get why the small businesses should have the right to track me to offer me better services that I never even asked for. Sure, its nice, but its not worth deregulating tracking and allowing all the evil corps to track me too.
- joshmanders 3y ago
  Here's a better analogy using the coffee shop: You walk into your favorite coffee shop, order your favorite coffee, every day. But because of privacy reasons the coffeeshop owner is unaware of anything. Doesn't even track inventory, just orders whatever whenever. One day you walk in and now you can't get your favorite coffee... Because the owner decided to remove that item from the menu. You get mad, "Where's my favorite coffee?" the barista says "owner removed it from menu" and you get even more upset "Why? Don't you know I come in here every day and order the same thing?!" Nope, because you don't want any amount of tracking whatesoever, knowing any type of habits from visitors is wrong! But in this scenario you deem the owner knowing that you order that coffee every day ensures that it never leaves the menu, so you actually do like tracking.

OhMeadhbh 3y ago

I have, unfortunately, become cynical in my old age. Don't take this the wrong way, but... <cynical_statement> The purpose of the web is to distribute ads. The "struggle" is with people who think we made this infrastructure so you could share recipes with your grand-mother. </cynical_statement>

gizmo 3y ago
No matter how bad the web gets, it can still get worse. Things can always get worse. That's why I'm not a cynic. Even when the fight is hopeless --and I don't believe it is-- delaying the inevitable is still worthwhile.
al_borland 3y ago
The infrastructure was put in place for people to freely share information. The ads only came once people started spending their time online and that's where the eyeballs were. The interstate highway system in the US wasn't build with the intent of advertising to people, it was to move people and goods around (and maybe provide a means to move around the military on the ground when needed). Once there were a lot of eyes flying down the interstate, the billboard was used to advertise to those people. The same thing happened with the newspaper, magazines, radio, TV, and YouTube. The technology comes first and the ads come with popularity and as a means to keep it low cost. We're seeing that now with Netflix as well. I'm actually a little surprised that books don't come with ads throughout them... maybe the longevity of the medium makes ads impractical.
digging 3y ago
Hm, I don't think that's the purpose of the web. It's just the most common use case.