Comment by stephenr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephenr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Because as someone who analyses marketing and advertising data, I can tell you that I strongly believe they do not use GA data in this way.

You can choose to believe that, and I can believe that a huge company funded almost entirely by placing highly targeted adverts on third-party websites across the web has a vested interest in data collection.

> THE WEBMASTER CAN CHOSE TO NOT SHARE IT WITH THEM.

Calm your tits. No one is claiming that Google hijacks other people's websites to inject GA tracking codes.

The point is that saying "(webmaster) chose not to share visitor IP addresses" ignores a key point: GA relies on the client loading javascript from a GA domain. That means GA has a client IP for the user-agent (i.e. browser) making the call. That isn't an opinion, its just how IP networking works.

Edit: Because someone else in this thread referenced some very relevant parts of Google's terms/policies:

"We use the information we collect from all of our services to provide, maintain, protect and improve them, to develop new ones, and to protect Google and our users. We also use this information to offer you tailored content – like giving you more relevant search results and ads."

https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/

"When you visit a website that uses our advertising products (like AdSense), social products (like the +1 button) or analytics tools (Google Analytics), your web browser automatically sends certain information to Google... When you visit websites or use apps that use Google technologies, we may use the information we receive from those websites and apps..."

https://www.google.com/policies/privacy/partners/

Except that my opinion is formed based on logic and my expertise and your opinion is based on... what exactly?

>That means GA has a client IP for the user-agent

When IP masking is enabled, Analytics removes the last octet of the user's IP address prior to its use and storage.

SO... yeah.

And I just LOVE how you selectively quote, so I'm gonna finish the quote for you:

"It should be noted this does not directly contradict what GP claims."

It is not shameful to be wrong. It is shameful when you can't admit that you are wrong. And especially when you can't admit it even to yourself.

> Except that my opinion is formed based on logic and my expertise and your opinion is based on... what exactly?

The exact words from Google own privacy policy, and the fundamentals of how IP networking works?

> It should be noted this does not directly contradict what GP claims

I disagree with that interpretation. They specifically say that they use data collected:

"We also use this information to offer you tailored content – like giving you more relevant search results and ads."

When IP masking is enabled, Analytics removes the last octet of the user's IP address prior to its use and storage. SO... yeah.

So that broadens the data to at-most, a 1 in 254 match based on IP address, taking User Agent strings and other browser information (plugins installed, window size, etc) I'd bet $100 they can still pinpoint a single device based on a 'masked' entry from GA data.

> It is not shameful to be wrong. It is shameful when you can't admit that you are wrong. And especially when you can't admit it even to yourself.

An opinion cannot be wrong. It's logically impossible. An opinion can be based on incorrect assumptions or incorrect knowledge, but an opinion in and of itself cannot be wrong.

You are so desperate to justify your thinking (not to me, mind you, to yourself) that you grasp for every straw possible, forgetting what the question was about along the way.

This particular question was about how you formed your opinion about Google using GA data to build advertising profiles. My opinion is formed based on my expertise in mining many terabytes of data and my experience in sourcing this data. Based on that experience I can say that GA data is not of interest to google because it is unreliable and they have better data already. Even if it was, they would have to stop themselves because it is just too damn risky (bankruptcy level risk) to use it.

So my opinion stems from my experience in this very business. And your opinion stems from where exactly? This is what I'm trying to show you. You have 0 idea what you are talking about but insist that you are right. Even further, you outright accuse google of lying when they say GA data is not used unless the webmaster explicitly opts in to share it. Why do they have that control in first place then?

Oh and btw, that quote about relevant search results and ads... you might want to check where it comes from before basing arguments off it. You know, if you want to have a coherent argument and not some tin foil conspiracy theory grasping desperately for whatever it can catch. Checking facts is a good thing, don't you agree?

Anyway, you will either admit it to yourself tomorrow, or you won't. I don't particularly care. I just wanted to see how far you will go in your justification attempt. Remember that just because you are allowed to have an opinion does not mean you must have one.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.

> So my opinion stems from my experience in this very business. And your opinion stems from where exactly?

For someone who claims to be experienced in the matter, you don't seem to know much about what Google does, even when they state explicitly what they do in their own privacy policy.

> You have 0 idea what you are talking about but insist that you are right. Even further, you outright accuse google of lying when they say GA data is not used unless the webmaster explicitly opts in to share it.

I never mentioned opt-in or opt-out. I said in general they re-use the data. The functionality is available, so common sense says you should assume its "enabled" (or Opt-In, in their language) for any site you visit, because you have no way to know that it isn't. I also never accused anyone of lying. I explicitly referenced Google's own privacy policy which says they use GA data for targeted ads.

> Oh and btw, that quote about relevant search results and ads... you might want to check where it comes from before basing arguments off it.

The quote comes from Google. I found you another one. This took me literally 10 seconds to find on https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/#infocollect (emphasis mine):

> We and our partners use various technologies to collect and store information when you visit a Google service, and this may include using cookies or similar technologies to identify your browser or device. We also use these technologies to collect and store information when you interact with services we offer to our partners, such as advertising services or Google features that may appear on other sites. Our Google Analytics product helps businesses and site owners analyze the traffic to their websites and apps. When used in conjunction with our advertising services, such as those using the DoubleClick cookie, Google Analytics information is linked, by the Google Analytics customer or by Google, using Google technology, with information about visits to multiple sites.

> Checking facts is a good thing, don't you agree?

Yup, maybe you should try it some time.

> I just wanted to see how far you will go in your justification attempt.

I admit following a clearly referenced URL, using the browser's page search and reading a couple of paragraphs was a long way to go, but I'm all about going the distance.

> Calm your tits

What the fuck, Stephen.

What the fuck what the fuck?

Why do you think "calm your tits" is an acceptable thing to say in this sort of situation in this sort of 2016.

The person I replied to was getting quite agitated and abusing his/her caps lock/shift key. I asked him/her to calm down, in an informal manner.

Why is it unacceptable to you?

Your comments are breaking the HN guidelines. If you continue to do that, we will ban your account. Please (re-)read the rules and post civilly and substantively or not at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com