11–20 of 52 posts
As often as I think to myself how dangerous it is that I've allowed Google to have so much of my information - I'm constantly impressed by how upfront and ethical they are.
Or for the mildly more paranoid, block it entirely; just add the following to /etc/hosts: 127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com 127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com
If you're really paranoid you could be worried about the domain changing anytime.
As often as I think to myself how dangerous it is that I've allowed Google to have so much of my information - I'm constantly impressed by how upfront and ethical they are.
As long as Larry, Serge, and Eric are in charge, I'll trust Google fully. I just worry that their benevolent legacy won't outlive me...
It's always been possible for a site owner to track certain things via access logs, I think Google should still allow for those basic metrics to be tracked via Google Analytics.
While it's still possible to track site usage via logs, I don't think Google should give end users a way to bypass the wishes of a site owner. If someone is using my site, I believe I have the right to have access to certain usage information. (Insert bit about doing it ethically)
In the past, Google Analytics has been good enough, and I've not felt the need to analyze my server logs. Now I question how popular this plug-in will become, and how it might skew even the most basic and fundamental usage stats.
By providing an all-or-nothing plug-in, Google is hurting those using Google Analytics more than it's helping to ensure people's privacy.
I can't wait until mailing lists try this: "To unsubscribe from our list, please send email every 24 hours to keepunsubscribingme@___.com. Here's a webapp to join to simplify the process." or "Would you like Sears to stop sending these coupons to your house? Please send a postcard to ___ every 30 days." Lol.
(Not saying this is a bad idea. What do I know? I'm going to keep it on my radar.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as Larry, Serge, and Eric are in charge, I'll trust Google fully. I just worry that their benevolent legacy won't outlive me...
I don't think I would put Eric in that list. There were some stores about him in the press.
If you look at the full quote [0], it's actually quite reasonable and forthright. He's explicitly warning users that search engines, including Google, are subject to inquiries from law enforcement, and thus, should not be considered secure, rather than dismissing privacy out of hand.
[0]: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to...
It gets very tricky when companies try to be the arms dealers to both sides. You can't advocate privacy and provide privacy tools while at the same time promoting analytics and data-mining tools used because of a lack of privacy. Ultimately, the two sides conflict and the end result is often bad for both sides.
Case in point -- IronPort used to be a company selling spam cannons, and then they started selling anti-spam devices. They quickly realized they had to stop selling the spam cannons if they wanted to be perceived as the anti-spam vendor of choice.