The rules aren't ridiculous. Website developers are just lazy/dumb and generally include shit like GA by default without even thinking of the privacy implications.
What's the problem with GA? I'm kind of left feeling a little puzzled by the hostility towards Google Analytics in the HN comments on the topic. I assumed HNers would be big fans of something like Google Analytics.
I believe Google has made a binding statement that GA tracking data about a site will never be used for Google's commercial benefit outside the GA product.
Who were they addressing when they made this binding statement? How was it binding? Can you prove it? Google's a software company, so without looking at their source code how do you know if they're lying or not?
Let's not forget this same company also promised to "don't be evil", and then changed their mind. What's backing up this "binding statement" and how do we know they won't change their mind again?
> Let's not forget this same company also promised to "don't be evil", and then changed their mind.
I've heard this ridiculous statement so many times. Do you think a company needs to put "don't be evil" to stop itself from doing evil things and then needs to go ahead and remove that phrase because otherwise it simply cannot proceed with evil? Sounds like a joke. We're talking about humans not robots here.
That said, I don't get why Google gets singled out all the time while all other players often play a dirtier game.
> I've heard this ridiculous statement so many times. Do you think a company needs to put "don't be evil" to stop itself from doing evil things and then needs to go ahead and remove that phrase because otherwise it simply cannot proceed with evil? Sounds like a joke. We're talking about humans not robots here.
My point was that Google has a history of making public statements that make themselves look good, and then backing down on them later. Maybe 5 years ago they didn't data mine Google Analytics, but who knows what their policy is now or when they may change it? I'm not saying the OP is wrong, just that I'd like more evidence than "they said so."
> That said, I don't get why Google gets singled out all the time while all other players often play a dirtier game.
Because Google went out of their way to tell everybody they were going to be different.
If Google isn't fully utilizing GA data it's because they tried it but found it had no impact or even a negative impact on their ad revenue so they ditched it.
It's part of the Data Processing Agreement that Google offers to the users/customers of Google Analytics. You can dig through the legalese, but the salient aspect is that Google describes itself as a "Processor" and not a "Controller." This means that they do not use the data for their own purposes.
Google's approach to GDPR compliance is entirely based around the idea that they're a Processor and it's not really their data, they're just the middleman. I would believe them because they have a lot riding on that.
The problem is that it gives an advertising/surveillance corporation detailed data on the web browsing habits of a massive number of unsuspecting users.
And that's fine for generic website developers IMO - however, governments should be held to a higher standard. I mean people fill in some really sensitive, fraud sensitive information - do you really want a 3rd party's JS on there?
Mind you I don't even want to know how much information browser addons have access to. Are there any APIs that forbid any addon from accessing the page? Probably not, that would thwart adblockers.
