10 ms·

Unfortunately it's attitudes like this that usually end up making Government projects so eye-wateringly expensive. Assuming they listen to your suggestion and

Unfortunately it's attitudes like this that usually end up making Government projects so eye-wateringly expensive. Assuming they listen to your suggestion and act on it as you suggest, it seems the only option open to them is to design their own in-house (In UK for that matter) version of Google Analytics to do their own analysis. Regardless of the cost and time this would add to the project, it's unlikely that it would be anywhere as good as Google's offering. The other, more likely, option would be to decide it's too expensive to implement a different, more complicated, solution; so they don't bother. They don't get the feedback and analysis on how to improve their services and the customer experience declines until you're back where you started with a poorly designed product offering hard-to-find information and people are posting angry comments on HackerNews about how bad gov.uk is and how they would never run a start-up like that... I'm almost certain someone would say "Why don't they use google analytics to improve things, like everyone else". Instead, we need to be applauding a massive operation like Gov.uk for taking a dose of reality and thinking, "we're not doing anything amazingly special here, we're providing people with a quick way to check their council tax, or bin collection dates, or maybe pay their car tax. let's just get the job done as best we can."

Samuel_Michon 13y ago
> the only option open to them is to design their own in-house (In UK for that matter) version of Google Analytics to do their own analysis. They could just install Mint on their own servers. Problem solved. http://www.haveamint.com/ http://www.haveamint.com/
Nursie 13y ago
I'm sorry what? F*ck privacy, this way is more expedient? Is that what you're saying in effect? That's not what I want from my government. --edit-- I also didn't make any suggestions, I would have accepted a reasonable explanation of the legal and technological measures that were in place to protect my data from rampant proliferation through US corporate and government systems. Instead I got (and this is a direct quote) "We don't allow Google to use or share our analytics data.", and a zendesk reference number. Fobbed off, basically. And with the zendesk link, now my actual communication with a UK government team is being processed in the bay area. This is unacceptable. --edit 2-- Somehow other large UK web-based institutions manage without GA as well. The BBC for instance. Perhaps they could talk to each other.
- mbesto 13y ago
  This is unacceptable. Before you start the lynch mob, ask yourself this: what on earth can one do with non-person-identifiable data stored on a server? "Next on BBC - Terrorist organisation finds out too many British people forget to update their MOTs" That's not what I want from my government. Be very very fortunate you can even get a somewhat usable site, much less a very user friendly site. There are citizens of the other nations that would kill for easier access to public information.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> Before you start the lynch mob, ask yourself this: what on earth can one do with non-person-identifiable data stored on a server? How do we know it's non-person-identifiable? It's certainly clear that the analytics data comes from a set IP address, and when correlated with all the other data that big G collect from all over the web, who knows what can come out of it. >> Be very very fortunate you can even get a somewhat usable site, much less a very user friendly site. 1. It's not just an information site. 2. Why should Google (and by extension the US government) be informed that I'm looking up (for instance) legal advice, business law or anything else? Again, this is my interactions with my government being published to another nation. --edit-- removed accusations of laziness, I'm sure the gov.uk folks aren't that.
    - lifeisstillgood 13y ago
      Why should one part of the UK government be informed about your interactions with another part? We have no framework for digital privacy, and until we see an emergent consensus there will not be one. Here, on this site, we have informed, reasonable people disagree on fundamental definitions of online privacy. I am unsure where to begin.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        Right, so because we haven't got a full and complete legal framework and associated consensus driven moral framework in this area, we should just relax and give up on the whole idea? We already have data protection frameworks in the UK and at the EU level. I would like to see them adhered to in spirit, and I would also like to know that someone involved in the gov.uk has at least given this a moment's thought.
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
I cannot upvote you as much as I want. Yes, yes, yes. The only time we should consider these attitudes is when real keep it from everyone security matters (you know MI5 style security, not pentest security) And frankly my view on that is now: want to keep a secret? Keep it away from computers.
- Nursie 13y ago
  What if I don't want everyone in the world to know everything about what I do with a computer? They're more and more part of everyone's life and not everyone is of the mindset that it doesn't matter if corporations and governments get to look at every little detail of their online interaction. Car tax, criminal law, the weekly shop at tesco.com ... all going to the profilers. I know this is happening. I know how to stop some of it. But everyone else?
  - lifeisstillgood 13y ago
    yes, I know - but there is a difference between privacy and secrecy. Privacy is the things anyone can work out by looking at me, secrecy is the stuff I actively hide. The cost of breaching privacy on mass scale has dropped simply because now everyone publishes everything about themselves. Breaching secrecy is still a manual intensive effort as it eve has been.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      People are not publishing this data willingly or knowingly. That's your disconnect with reality.

Samuel_Michon 13y ago

> the only option open to them is to design their own in-house (In UK for that matter) version of Google Analytics to do their own analysis. They could just install Mint on their own servers. Problem solved. http://www.haveamint.com/ http://www.haveamint.com/

Nursie 13y ago

I'm sorry what? F*ck privacy, this way is more expedient? Is that what you're saying in effect? That's not what I want from my government. --edit-- I also didn't make any suggestions, I would have accepted a reasonable explanation of the legal and technological measures that were in place to protect my data from rampant proliferation through US corporate and government systems. Instead I got (and this is a direct quote) "We don't allow Google to use or share our analytics data.", and a zendesk reference number. Fobbed off, basically. And with the zendesk link, now my actual communication with a UK government team is being processed in the bay area. This is unacceptable. --edit 2-- Somehow other large UK web-based institutions manage without GA as well. The BBC for instance. Perhaps they could talk to each other.

mbesto 13y ago
This is unacceptable. Before you start the lynch mob, ask yourself this: what on earth can one do with non-person-identifiable data stored on a server? "Next on BBC - Terrorist organisation finds out too many British people forget to update their MOTs" That's not what I want from my government. Be very very fortunate you can even get a somewhat usable site, much less a very user friendly site. There are citizens of the other nations that would kill for easier access to public information.
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> Before you start the lynch mob, ask yourself this: what on earth can one do with non-person-identifiable data stored on a server? How do we know it's non-person-identifiable? It's certainly clear that the analytics data comes from a set IP address, and when correlated with all the other data that big G collect from all over the web, who knows what can come out of it. >> Be very very fortunate you can even get a somewhat usable site, much less a very user friendly site. 1. It's not just an information site. 2. Why should Google (and by extension the US government) be informed that I'm looking up (for instance) legal advice, business law or anything else? Again, this is my interactions with my government being published to another nation. --edit-- removed accusations of laziness, I'm sure the gov.uk folks aren't that.
  - lifeisstillgood 13y ago
    Why should one part of the UK government be informed about your interactions with another part? We have no framework for digital privacy, and until we see an emergent consensus there will not be one. Here, on this site, we have informed, reasonable people disagree on fundamental definitions of online privacy. I am unsure where to begin.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      Right, so because we haven't got a full and complete legal framework and associated consensus driven moral framework in this area, we should just relax and give up on the whole idea? We already have data protection frameworks in the UK and at the EU level. I would like to see them adhered to in spirit, and I would also like to know that someone involved in the gov.uk has at least given this a moment's thought.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

I cannot upvote you as much as I want. Yes, yes, yes. The only time we should consider these attitudes is when real keep it from everyone security matters (you know MI5 style security, not pentest security) And frankly my view on that is now: want to keep a secret? Keep it away from computers.

Nursie 13y ago
What if I don't want everyone in the world to know everything about what I do with a computer? They're more and more part of everyone's life and not everyone is of the mindset that it doesn't matter if corporations and governments get to look at every little detail of their online interaction. Car tax, criminal law, the weekly shop at tesco.com ... all going to the profilers. I know this is happening. I know how to stop some of it. But everyone else?
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago
  yes, I know - but there is a difference between privacy and secrecy. Privacy is the things anyone can work out by looking at me, secrecy is the stuff I actively hide. The cost of breaching privacy on mass scale has dropped simply because now everyone publishes everything about themselves. Breaching secrecy is still a manual intensive effort as it eve has been.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    People are not publishing this data willingly or knowingly. That's your disconnect with reality.