Google Analytics Opt-Out Browser Add-On

[rchmura]

That doesn't do what you think it does. It only excludes your data from being included in Google Analytics reports that website owners "end users" see. All your data still goes to "the borg" as if nothing has really changed.

You need to block the domain completely using a privacy tool plug-in for your browser.

[nsgi]

Source?

According to Google:

> This add-on instructs the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) running on websites to prohibit their information from being used by Google Analytics. Using the Google Analytics opt-out plug-in will not prevent site owners from using other tools to measure site analytics.

https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/181881?hl=en

I've heard that the reason it sets a variable rather than blocking the script is to avoid breaking websites that do custom tracking.

[laumars]

I run a custom DNS server with the domains blacklisted on there so any device on my home network is covered.

My set up is dnsmasq, which can issue DNS rules based upon the servers /etc/hosts file, and then Someone Who Cares hosts file[1] which has trackers and many other unwanted web nasties added to the loopback address.

And as its just hosts files, the thing is trivial to fully automate so once a week I pull the latest list of banned domains.

There are also other services like Someone Who Cares, some tailored more specifically towards Windows and some tailored more specifically to blocking ads, or malware, etc.

[1] http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/

[jelv]

Good options for real privacy:

Privacy Badger from EFF The extension is designed to automatically protect your privacy from third party trackers that load invisibly when you browse the web. We send the Do Not Track header with each request, and our extension evaluates the likelihood that you are still being tracked. If the algorithm deems the likelihood is too high, we automatically block your request from being sent to the domain. Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-badger/pke... Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/nl/firefox/addon/privacy-badger-f...

or

Ghostery from Ghostery, Inc Block over 2300 request from Advertising, Analytics, Beacons, Privacy and Widgets lists. Quick, easy to use and configure. There business model isn't all that great, it's selling data to advertisers if you want to optin for that. Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ghostery/mlomiejdf... Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/nl/firefox/addon/ghostery/?src=se...

There are others but they all have a downside. AdBlock (Plus) but has terrible business model which let advertisers buy back adds, uBlock (Origin) super quick AdBlock fork but with terrible interface and Disconnect which also has a terrible interface.

[plorg]

It takes a bit of learning upfront, but uBlock's Advanced User interface[0] is actually quite good if you're looking for NoScript-style site-by-site configuration. It's certainly not going to work for all users, but it's worth a look if you can grok the interface.

[0] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Advanced-user-feature...

[gorhill]

> uBlock (Origin) super quick AdBlock fork

uBlock Origin was written from scratch, it's not a fork of AdBlock.

> with terrible interface

I disagree. Out of the box, the UI is mostly a big button to toggle it on/off on a per-site basis, suitable for all users.

Advanced users can have access to a point-and-click firewall (including with per-site rules), I can't think of anyway to make it simpler, and this is a feature that most other "blockers" do not even have.

[hahainternet]

> AdBlock (Plus) but has terrible business model which let advertisers buy back adds

How is that terrible? (this is not their business model in reality) Do you not agree that by using these features you deprive sites of revenue? Adblock believe that unintrusive ads should be permitted to allow free sites to remain free.

This is a perfectly reasonable position to take and it is unfair of you to attack them.

[babuskov]

I'm using RequestPolicy. No downsides I'm aware of?

[aroch]

The opt-out doesn't really do anything: http://www.unrest.ca/google-analytics-opt-out-not-really

[hahainternet]

The article completely disagrees with you. Why did you post an article that doesn't say what you claim?

[hackuser]

Thanks. That article was posted in 2010; does anyone know if it's still accurate?

[rchmura]

Yes - good resource. All of Google's TOS/Privacy-Polcies are so full of vague and misleading legal speak (on purpose of course), I'm not surprised that OP was tricked.

[Kristine1975]

This opt-out works for me (add to hosts file):

  127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com 
  127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com 
  127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com

[rchmura]

What about the doubleclick domains and adwords domains which feed the same data into the same system too? And what about when they launch a new domain? (Would be difficult to keep up with those changes)

[jimktrains2]

I just use NoScript.

[amelius]

Opt out? This should be the default.

In an ideal situation, Google tells the user that in order to provide optimized recommendation services, the user must enable certain options. These options could include the reporting of browsing behavior to Google. They could also include storing X bytes of information on Google servers for at most Y days, where X and Y can be chosen by the user.

[JoshMnem]

"Don't let the fox guard the henhouse."

(unless the "fox" is Firefox, and even then you should be using 3rd party privacy extensions like Privacy Badger or Ghostery)

[Houshalter]

What's the advantage of this over blocking tracking stuff with adblock? Or other extensions like disconnect.me?

[sfilipov]

I doubt there is any (for the user). While there are many benefits to keep using an ad blocker.

[rchaud]

This news concerns me a bit, as a project manager for a SaaS web app that uses GA to generate user activity reports for data around things like "# of users who clicked on link X" or "users who completed a survey". I'm not a dev, and we hire an outside web dev company to build the web app and reporting dashboard.

Can someone more knowledgeable than me indicate if a user with this add-on enabled will be throwing up zeros on our analytics when they use the software as a logged in user? I know Ghostery blocks GA, but it's niche enough that I don't worry about a critical mass of our target demographic using it. But this seems like an official Google add-on, which makes it much higher profile to average users.

[rchmura]

Your report will have 0s for those users. Ideally your SaaS web app should use another tool for tracking analytics data instead. Google is a bad choice because you are basically tagging all your customers as "Dear marketers, please advertise to these people because they are interested in product X". Say hello to even more churn. (And not to mention more competitive ad-buyers when it comes to user acquisition)

Consumers concerns relating to Google analytics are valid, but the companies/sites hosting them are harmed significantly worse.

[cissou]

It makes it so no data generated by a user ever reaches Google Analytics's server, so: yes, they will be zeroes, except if you use other tools to account for them.

[jmount]

"For Internet Explorer, 3rd-party cookies must be enabled." Sounds like it activates a bunch of other stuff that the kind of person who would want to "opt out" would never want.

[mnort9]

I find this to be more of a PR stunt that says "Google tries to care about privacy..."

With every change they make to Google search, they put more value on a site's user experience. Now they take away data that is used to improve user experience... smh

If GA users are abiding by their terms and not collecting private info, why is this necessary? Punish all b/c we don't feel like investigating who is actually wronfully collecting private info?

[rchmura]

It's more than a PR stunt - it's actually misleading people into thinking that there are tools which can reduce or block the data that is sent to google - when in fact this tool doesn't do that at all. This tool only stops the data from being added into the reports that the webmaster sees.

More irony: is that private browsing without cookies will disable this feature all together. I know right?

The biggest loser in this whole thing is the startup/webmaster who has google installed on their site.

[callumlocke]

But if it was a PR stunt wouldn't it have more design to it? It looks like some kind of legal compliance thing, not something they want to get any attention.

[kissickas]

"The requested URL /intl/en/analytics/learn/privacy.html was not found on this server. That’s all we know."

I still hate this 404 message.

Edit: maybe I didn't make it clear enough that that was what I saw after clicking on "Learn more about Google Analytics Privacy »".

[MichaelGG]

Are you on a non US or non English "IP"? Google does this stupid geoip work then 404s pages for other regions. For instance, their solar rooftop calculator thing just 404d in IPs they think are in Central America. It's a dumb and weird way of handling things, though no doubt someone got a raise for that feature.

[ForHackernews]

I've had pretty good luck with: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/gdc/

[wellsjohnston]

This may seem like a silly question, but why would someone want to do that? Google Analytics is basically anonymous traffic and demographic data for web site users. Why does anyone care?

[rchmura]

Here's a A summary of some of my previous comments on this: The bulk of information about you isn't associated with your account. (or in some personal way) Rather, it's stored in other silos associated with a non-account identifier (consider this a way to make it easy to serve more targeted ads to people who don't even have a google account). This non-account identified data can be enriched by account data (when there are co-occurrences of account activity along with non-account identifiers).

There are great efforts made to track everything we possibly can about people's behavior on the web. Algorithms connect all the dots and make information about you (found in Service A, Service B, ...) useful. So useful that we can determine enough about you to tailor your online experience in order to influence your decisions when it comes to purchases, brand recognition, political leaning, etc. This is done even when the influence we have over you may harm your best interests, for the purpose improving ROI for advertisers.

So the idea of "anonymous" data really isn't that, and the real issue is how that data is used against you. This is true both for an end user, as well as a company using google analytics on their site (losing customers, classifying their marketing sources for advertisers on doubleclick, etc.)

[nemoniac]

"Don't be evil," Google.