On the Web, this happens already (try a browser add-on such as RequestPolicy which will show you the numerous sites that track you all over the Web - often 20 or more per page).
127.0.0.1 hosted-pixel.com 127.0.0.1 cdn.hosted-pixel.com
When web bugs first appeared, there was a huge public outcry. Now that they call it "analytics" or "big data" everyone seems cool with it.
However I can't block everything with hosts; some of the tracking scripts come from the same hosts as I actually use. I'm planning to write a firefox addon which will do stuff like remove the Facebook "Like" buttons. Even if I don't click the button, Facebook knows that it served me the script.
||twitter.$domain=~twitter.com
||twitter.$domain=~twitter.com|~another.comYou can stop a lot of trackers by minimizing referer leaks. Firefox has the config option network.http.sendRefererHeader which defaults to 2, "always send referer." 1=same FQDN, 0=never send. So by setting it to 0 or 1, a typical tracker that's gotten past your /etc/hosts entries, adblock, etc. will see you requesting their pixel image but never see the sites that initiated those HTTP GETs.
There are no silver bullets, just good tools, and reducing the referer footprint is one of them.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/policeman/
Or on Github for a more bleeding-edge version
[^1]: https://github.com/futpib/policeman/issues/28 Plus issues 92 and 95.
So, I went ahead and created a wiki for this: https://github.com/UprootLabs/gngr/wiki/List-of-request-bloc...
If there are any known issues with RPContinued or there are other extensions that are not listed, please feel free to add them. Thanks.
The extensions which have a switchboard like interface enable the user to block requests based on the request's domain name, the primary frame's domain-name, and also the type of request.
In contrast, extensions like NoScript have a global switch. If I allow scripts from DontBeEvil.com, they are enabled on all domains. They don't prevent XSS attacks, for example.
If there's a better name for this concept, please do suggest one.
It generates massive value that everybody benefits from. People appreciate that.
I just wonder how much of the set of "analytics" that requires involving 3rd parties (web bugs and other referrer tricks) is actually useful and a value. The set that is a value "that everybody benefits from" is going to be even smaller.
I'm sure most people want this data, and see a lot of potential use. Usually, there is a big difference between "want" and "need", and I suspect a lot of the current attitude that throws analytics on everything is some experimentation, a limited amount of real value, and a whole lot of people joining in because they can (fad, bandwagon effect, it's what a tutorial said, etc).
I am completely cool with someone analyzing their own logs if I visit their site. What I'm not cool with, is them finding out what _other_ sites I visit.
I regard the current focus on analytics as unduly obsessive. How much do you need to know about your customer to flog your products? Just because you can measure something, it doesn't mean that it's going to do anyone any good to measure it.
I used to do direct mail; all we ever did was what today is known as A/B testing - we'd send "test drops" to different lists, with different prices, different wording in the offer letters and so on. It worked really well.
As you mention, I'm more concerned with tracking as a 3rd-party[1]. There is, obviously, at least some real benefit in these cases that would not be possible when only using server logs. It's probably a lot less than most people think. A lot of that data (or similar-enough data when measured in e.g. how much it benefits sales or makes marketing cheaper) can probably be found elsewhere.
If we knew what the core benefits (needs, not wants), we might (in an ideal world) even be able to have some sort of social negotiation where the data can be provided in some form (or an alternative, or by making sure the real social cost is covered properly).
[1] While the law currently doesn't work this way, involving a 3rd-party unauthorized should really be considered some new type of (criminal) wiretapping in states that require 2-party consent.
If you can find equivalent data somewhere else, you should go build a company around this. People built their products this way because it works. If you have a better idea then you should make it happen.
The degree of focus that this permits is how startups and small companies can find and target their market quickly, where a large company could just market to everybody and see who responds. It's hard to tell how much of the tech startup boom has been driven by this, but after working for and with a few of them, third party analytics is critical because you usually don't have the time or money to find your market without it. Before we had analytics the strategy was "make a lucky guess and verify it before you run out of money". Now the default strategy is "measure who is interested and go directly to them".
I'll accept that large, successful companies don't really get much out of this sort of thing - they already know who buys their product, and have the scale and resources to target everybody. They probably do use analytics just because it's there, and not because they need to.