The thing that really bothers me with these privacy discussions is that everybody talks about cookies. The "no cookies, no consent" -mantra is false and does not respect user privacy because there are other ways to track people, like browser fingerprinting, which is even harder to block for an average internet user.
The other thing, GDPR is not about cookies. The ePrivacy Directive regulates the use of cookies, but it's not about cookies either. Article 5.3. in the ePrivacy Directive says:
"Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, ..."
So whatever technology you use, you need consent to use web analytics tools. At least at the moment. A draft online suggests there might be a consent exception for audience measurement if the technology used complies with GDPR - again, this has nothing to do with cookies. The point is that the personal information collected, stored, and processed does not violate GDPR.
Another thing is that all the "GA is illegal" cases have nothing to do with cookies. It's about data transfers between the EU and the US and how Google handles the data. GDPR came into force in 2018, and we will see many more legal privacy cases in the future regarding the ePrivacy Directive. The bulletproof solution at the moment for any web analytics product is to ask for consent in the EU.
I've had talks with EU-based privacy gurus; some think everything is clear, and companies are mean just and reluctant to comply. But most of us agree that the messaging is done very poorly - what to do, how to comply etc.
And yes, giant consent banners break the UX. But at the same time, it's important to remember this data privacy regulation stuff is not about companies. It's about the users. And companies who build tracking tools shouldn't be motivated by the idea, "how can we ignore user consent?".
Not true. Consent has nothing to do with cookies. If you look at what the ePrivacy Directive article 5.3. says, it's pretty clear:
"Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, ... "
So even Fathom, and other analytics tools that use browser fingerprinting or similar methods require consent.
And also, the whole no cookie, no consent -mantra does not respect user privacy. In some ways, browser fingerprinting is even worse because that's much harder for an average user to block than cookies.
It might be true, if the stored data is truly anonymized, as they seem to not be storing any data on the browser.
There is a fuzzy line somewhere between access-logs and user-tracking.
Personally I think that at that point, one should just stop loading analytic scripts and stick to server-side access-log analytic toolg like goaccess.io.
“Privacy harms of online tracking are not limited to cookies so we would wish to understand what the government and the regulator propose, especially with regards to a browser-based signal.”
This is a big issue. Everybody talks about cookies while there are still other ways to track people.
Legislation will always lag behind reality here but if there was political will, you could still have privacy protected. It is not about regulating technicalities and more about legislating the ownership of data and how and if that ownership can be transferred. This would and should also impact trade with data and its market value that is hard to understand for most people.
I fully agree. My theory is that "cookie" is just a term that people memorize. Other tracking methods dont have such fancy terms. It is OK for professionals, but for decision makers that are no experts in that field, it is hindering.
GA is overwhelming. I’ve seen how people open their GA dashboards and are paralyzed by the sheer amount of information. Now, Google is forcing all their users to GA4, which is even more complicated than Universal Analytics.
So yeah, GA has two big problems: information overflow and privacy.
What’s interesting, though, is that most analytics tools still violate European privacy laws. The GDPR is straightforward: if you collect or process personal data, you need user consent. So, if your tracker is anonymous, that should be fine.
But, the ePrivacy Directive also applies to web analytics software. Article 5.3. states: "Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent…"
And they actually violate European data privacy laws, as do most of the consent management platforms. Or, they are implementend in a way that breaches GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive - pre-ticked boxes etc.
I was thinking the exact same thing. It's easy to say it's because of the market sentiments, but you could also use that as an excuse.
Covid lockdowns forced businesses to rethink their operational models. For some remote work etc. turned out to be profitable opportunities - you could do the same with less infrastructure.
On another note, their CEO said "There are exciting days ahead for OneTrust as we transform into the Trust Intelligence Platform company." That sounds pretty wtf. Like someone just put some fancy words in line.
This got me thinking. Minimalism or minimalist systems are often seen as systems with less energy. Or, we seem to think it takes less energy to remove objects than to add objects (complex systems). More stuff, more energy. But, minimalism needs a lot of useful work. Less stuff is not the same as a minimalist system. Using a music analogy, I argue, it's much easier (takes less energy) to fill an empty space with hundreds of notes than with a few carefully selected notes :)
"Writing manifestos about the state of the industry has never really been our thing." Except, their website feels like a big ol manifesto. And when I read it the first time, I got excited.
But the more I read stuff like this, the more suspicious I get, and I get hit by manifesto fatigue. I want to see the product, and I would love to see something new in the browser world.
The vision is beautiful, and I'm curious to see how that turns into a usable product. I'm pretty sure I don't want my go-to browser to be an artwork or a build-it-yourself type of thing.
Function often comes before the feeling for a reason. A restaurant can't exist without its functionality. That "beloved dish that never fails" is not a feeling but a good product.
I have a strong feeling this will be a very niche product. I would also love to be proven wrong.
It has to look good on paper though. I don't know the cost of maintenance of these scooters, but the rides are terribly expensive in my area. I mean If I wanted to commute using these, I'd have to pay almost $10 one way (one more reason to prefer cycling!). This is probably a fraction of the cost of energy. On the other hand, I'd hate to be servicing these.
It's expensive in my area as well. The big problem is people dumb these things all over the place - on bicycle lanes etc. I guess these companies also have to spend quite a few dollars on PR and stuff to make people hate them less.
The service and fines that they get are a huge cost. And as you said, once pricing goes up people won't ride them as much. It becomes serious overhead.
From the company founders' perspective it was never meant to make money, merely generate "growth & engagement" and the prospect of a monopoly in order to solicit VC funding.
For this task it worked perfectly, at least at the beginning. Thankfully the "growth & engagement" cesspool is finally draining and this is the expected result.
