Google Analytics May Be Illegal In Germany

sopssa sends in a TechCrunch story that begins "Several federal and regional government officials in Germany are trying to put a ban on Google Analytics, the search giant's free software product that allows website owners and publishers to get detailed statistics about the number, whereabouts, and search behavior of their visitors (and much more)." Here's Google's translation of the article from Zeit Online (original in German). A German lawyer cited there says that penalties for websites that uses Google Analytics could amount to €50,000 (about $75,000). Reader sopssa adds, "The amount of data Google collects from everywhere on the Internet is indeed huge, and website owners should be using a local open source alternative to keep visitor data private."

Comments

Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is illegal in Germany.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not as far off the mark as you think.

Re:Schadenfreude

[mrwolf007]

Everything is illegal in Germany.

Bullshit. Only if its usefull for anything.
Otherwise the chances of it being illegal are merely high.

Re:Schadenfreude

[TooMuchToDo]

Except German scheisse videos. Cartman taught me that much.

Re:Schadenfreude

[atheistmonk]

How else do you think Inspector Rex would stay on the job?

Re:Schadenfreude

[atheistmonk]

Wait.. Rex is Austrian.. Like Hitler.

Re:Schadenfreude

[rrohbeck]

Except saying bad words on TV or being naked in public :)

Re:Schadenfreude

[Brian Gordon]

Well it's their own fault. Why doesn't Germany, I don't know, stop electing these people?

Re:Schadenfreude

[introspekt.i]

You're not as far off the deutchmark as you think.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Schadenfreude

[cdhgee]

You're not as far off the EURO as you think.

There, fixed that for you.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Schadenfreude

[davester666]

Sssh. You're not supposed to mention 'H'. And whatever you do, don't talk about the war.

Re:Schadenfreude

[beefnog]

I'm actually an American on vacation in Frankfurt at this very moment, and it is, indeed, a much more regulated environment. Seeing three guys walking through the aiport, one of them holding an automatic weapon at the ready, and getting the feeling that they're just waiting for a reason to jump you is very sobering. As far as everything being against the law, after talking candidly with some of my friends that live in Germany that is a far less humorous statement than it should be.

Re:Schadenfreude

[maxwell demon]

You're not as far off the 51 Euro Cents as you think.

There, fixed that for you.

There, fixed that for you.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually an American on vacation in Frankfurt at this very moment, and it is, indeed, a much more regulated environment. Seeing three guys walking through the aiport, one of them holding an automatic weapon at the ready, and getting the feeling that they're just waiting for a reason to jump you is very sobering. As far as everything being against the law, after talking candidly with some of my friends that live in Germany that is a far less humorous statement than it should be.

I think you're just an idiot. If you find any police presence in Germany (Europe) more threatening than *anything* in the US, you're out of your mind. Period! End of discussion! I don't even want to think about the difference in the probability of having a gun pointed at you (police or criminals). I think you cite the *only* example where indeed there is more (open) presence of guns in Europe than in the US. But then go back and check how many people got killed innocently in airports that way in Europe over the past decades, probably zero or close to that.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Grimbleton]

What war?

Re:Schadenfreude

[smd75]

The country that tried to take over the world is afraid of the company that is taking over the world?

Re:Schadenfreude

[misexistentialist]

And prostitution

Re:Schadenfreude

[misexistentialist]

Cops get to carry assault rifles, but you get to carry a beer around in the dreaded "open container." Seems fair considering that Americans cops take their fancy weapons out whenever they get the chance.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Meski]

Parent deserves a funny mod, at least.

Re:Schadenfreude

[bronney]

"you know who"

Re:Schadenfreude

[mister_playboy]

What does Mongolia have to do with this story?

Re:Schadenfreude

[Z34107]

I think you're just an idiot. If you find any police presence in Germany (Europe) more threatening than *anything* in the US, you're out of your mind.

The German police certainly sound more threatening. A friend of mine spent the summer there, and saw lots of police with automatic weapons, grenades, bandoleers, the whole nine yards. Stateside, that level of armament means either a SWAT team or the regular military.

German police: definitely more "threatening." Not necessarily any more dangerous, but definitely more threatening.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think good food is illegal there either. Seems to me they're not missing out on anything worthwhile.

Re:Schadenfreude

[stirz]

Fortunately, "The country that tried to take over the world" has ceased to exist in May 1945. So what are you talking about?

Re:Schadenfreude

[moronoxyd]

I call bullshit.

The German policemen have a handgun, that's it.
As far as I know they don't have a shotgun in the trunk or anything.
Policemen with more armament are the German equivalent of SWAT or riot troops (say when a major league soccer game is on or a high profile demonstration).

Re:Schadenfreude

[kju]

The German police certainly sound more threatening. A friend of mine spent the summer there, and saw lots of police with automatic weapons, grenades, bandoleers, the whole nine yards.

I wonder how your friend managed to see such heavy armed police that often. I actually live in germany and the normal police officer has his normal gun and nothing else. I only see police with automatic weapons at the airport. I have never seen police with grenades and neither with bandoleers. I think your friend is full of shit.

German police: definitely more "threatening." Not necessarily any more dangerous, but definitely more threatening.

Says the guy who does not even have firsthand experience of seeing german police? When talking about mere perceived threat, juding by what i occasionally see on tv news, i would feel much more threatened by the police and other security in the USA, carrying nasty stuff like teasers and so. I've never seen a machine gun outside of a german airport, and the only other weapon beside the normal police gun i have seen with german police was a club. And this is very unusual as well.

So stop spreading second hand bullshit.

Re:Schadenfreude

[quadrox]

While I agree that things are overregulated, how is this any different from the police patroling the Golden Gate bridge with autmatic weapons? An M4 as far as I remember - I was there.

Re:Schadenfreude

[dunkelfalke]

Frankfurt airport really sucks. Try DUS sometimes, it is much more relaxed and friendly.

Re:Schadenfreude

[dunkelfalke]

You friend is probably a liar. I've never seen a German policeman with anything larger than a pistol and I live in Germany since 1993.

Re:Schadenfreude

[bickerdyke]

I never saw german police with grenades.

And I rarely saw them armed with more than a handgun before The Great Fear Of Terror swept over us.

OTOH, speaking of regular military... thats one thing you won't see at all: Armed military troops. They aren't allowed to do any domestic operations. So, if big guns are needed, yes, they will be handled by a special team of the police.

Re:Schadenfreude

[dave420]

Hmm. I've lived in Germany since 2007, and I've yet to see a German police officer with anything more than a handgun. At the bigger airports, there'll be a couple of guys with assault rifles somewhere, but that's it.

German police are only threatening if you think they're Nazis, which the vast majority of them aren't. Heck, I've always been treated well by the German police, including being driven home for free on New Year's Day after drinking a bit too much. After spending time in both the US, Germany, and the UK, I'm less scared of the German police than I am of the US police, and I'm less scared of the UK police than I am the German police.

Which summer was it, and where was he? Was it this summer, when Barack Obama was in Germany? Because yeah, the police were guarding him pretty closely.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Jesus_666]

Great. Our fifteen minutes in the limelight and now we can't talk about it anymore? Screw you. We can shoot back since 5:45 whenever we want to. (Which, admittedly, is unlikely to occur again.)

Re:Schadenfreude

[Jesus_666]

Before the USA mandated paranoia for everyone, I rarely saw a policeman with as much as a handgun. Then again, I live in a rural area, so your cops are unlikely to ever see any reason to use one.

Re:Schadenfreude

[ProzacPatient]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Germany is not a free country.
I always hear about them banning something or other for some stupid reason because it isn't good for the public.
The most recent thing I heard about was that German politicians banned paintball because they believe it will lead to less gun-related violence and therefore good for society, and then you can't say anything about Nazis or face jail time or some other severe penalty and video games have to be heavily censored.
I could go on on but in short I put Germany up there with China, not quiet as bad but still the fact that free speech is merely an illusion there makes me feel that Germany has a ways to go in terms of personal liberties when compared to several other democratic countries in the western world.

Re:Schadenfreude

[kju]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Germany is not a free country.

I'm german and i actually feel that i'm in a very free country, thank you very much. Yes, there are some laws which i disagree with, but overall it is fine.

Complete bullshit. You can say a lot about nazis and the nazi areas. You can discuss this, and you are even free to utter dumb sentences like "not everything was bad in nazi germany" (which is technically spoken true, but a dumb statement nethertheless as a german tv personality badly learned a while a ago).

You are only banned from showing symbols like the swastika, play/sing some songs like the "Horst Wessel Lied" (horst wessel song, hymn of the nazi party), deny the holocaust or praise the unlawful nazi regime. But even doing this will most of the time not lead you into jail. A fine will do in most cases.

Now you might argue that this is against freedom of speech, but as a german i feel that given our history there is very good reason to ban said things, especially denying the holocaust. Our ancestors have done enough harm to e.g. jews, there is no need to further harm them by allowing to state that the horror they (the few who were not killed) encountered actually never happened.

I could go on on but in short I put Germany up there with China, not quiet as bad

Yes, you could go on with bullshit claims, but this still puts germany nowhere near china. Not quite as bad? That is the understatement of the year.

but still the fact that free speech is merely an illusion

Still the fact is that free speech is actually provided in germany. But most of us germans (and europeans in general) have a different feeling of the meaning of free speech. Free speech is fine, but the right to it ends where others are harmed. I don't have a problem with that, and most people i know don't have either. This concept might be hard to grasp for a citizen of the United States, but i'm still fine with it and i don't feel that i'm missing some of the banned speech.

there makes me feel that Germany has a ways to go in terms of personal liberties when compared to several other democratic countries in the western world.

I take it that you are from the US. People like you also have a long way to go until you will finally understand that the us american believes are not the holy grail to which the whole world needs to subscribe.

Re:Schadenfreude

[kju]

Sorry, disregard my other posting, something went wrong.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Germany is not a free country.

I'm german and i actually feel that i'm in a very free country, thank you very much. Yes, there are some laws which i disagree with, but overall it is fine.

and then you can't say anything about Nazis or face jail time or some other severe penalty

Complete bullshit. You can say a lot about nazis and the nazi era. You can discuss this, and you are even free to utter dumb sentences like "not everything was bad in nazi germany" (which is technically spoken true, but a dumb statement nethertheless as a german tv personality badly learned a while a ago).

You are only banned from showing symbols like the swastika, play/sing some songs like the "Horst Wessel Lied" (horst wessel song, hymn of the nazi party), deny the holocaust or praise the unlawful nazi regime. But even doing this will most of the time not lead you into jail. A fine will do in most cases.

Now you might argue that this is against freedom of speech, but as a german i feel that given our history there is very good reason to ban said things, especially denying the holocaust. Our ancestors have done enough harm to e.g. jews, there is no need to further harm them by allowing to state that the horror they (the few who were not killed) encountered actually never happened.

I could go on on but in short I put Germany up there with China, not quiet as bad

Yes, you could go on with bullshit claims, but this still puts germany nowhere near china. Not quite as bad? That is the understatement of the year.

but still the fact that free speech is merely an illusion

Still the fact is that free speech is actually provided in germany. But most of us germans (and europeans in general) have a different feeling of the meaning of free speech. Free speech is fine, but the right to it ends where others are harmed. I don't have a problem with that, and most people i know don't have either. This concept might be hard to grasp for a citizen of the United States, but i'm still fine with it and i don't feel that i'm missing some of the banned speech.

there makes me feel that Germany has a ways to go in terms of personal liberties when compared to several other democratic countries in the western world.

I take it that you are from the US. People like you also have a long way to go until you will finally understand that the us american believes are not the holy grail to which the whole world needs to subscribe.

Re:Schadenfreude

[timbo234]

and drinking alcohol in public (including parks and public transport)

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

The most recent thing I heard about was that German politicians banned paintball because they believe it will lead to less gun-related violence and therefore good for society,...

Some politicians proposed it, but it didn't go through, too much oposition...

Also your other arguments are not really founded on good knowledge of Germany. "Saying something about Nazis" is very common in Germany. Yes, there are certain restrictions, like the ban of the Nazi symbols. On the other hand, this ban is directed against using it for propaganda, so there are many exceptions (you see it in movies, theater, books, TV, ...).

Yes, I know, it's still a restriction. In Germany you get in trouble for advocating the holocaust, in other free countries it is a apparently a problem to drink a beer in a public place. I guess every society has its sensitive spots...

Re:Schadenfreude

[lavaboy]

Lived here since 1989, sometimes you do see them with MP's and shotguns. Like when there was a raid on an Apartment complex near where I live - about 30 cops, heavy artillery, vests and dogs never found out what actually happened - or on patrol in the vicinity of some of the embassies (Turkey, for example).

But the worst thing about german cops is the fact that they get to carry guns, but hardly ever get to actually fire them (something about cost cutting and the cost of ammo and range time). It turns out that they average something like 1 or 2 range days a year. I shoot more than that when I'm on vacation, and I can't hit the broadside of a barn. Every once in a while you hear about an arrest involving the use of a police sidearm. Usually ends up with someone other than the criminal being shot. I.e. the guy who stabbed the egyptian woman in a courtroom in Dresden earlier this year - the cop shot her husband instead of the killer. Or the cop who discharged her gun in the middle of the very crowed Nürnberg train station at rush hour while in pursuit of a suspect (no one was hurt). Or the two cops who shot each other during a traffic stop gone bad, because they positioned themselves on either side of the car, at the front window and then opened fire on the driver.

There are more stories, but the general theme is when you hear about a cop using his gun in germany, it tends to include some mention of which person or object - other than the suspect - was wounded or damaged.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Carewolf]

i would feel much more threatened by the police and other security in the USA, carrying nasty stuff like teasers and so.

Hey, don't tease me bro!

Re:Schadenfreude

[beefnog]

You call bullshit? Well I call "I was there" and I have the passport stamp to prove it. I didn't think the guy with the gun would smile for the camera, otherwise I'd have a picture for you! Even if you feel like discounting the assault weapon in the airport, maybe you can explain why a group of six officers, three in green uniforms and three in blue, travelling around the Haupt-Bahnhoff as a group is necessary for the safety of ordinary train travel? I'm not insinuating that Germany is some sort of crazy fucked-over police state. I'm just pointing out the differences in projected presence of force versus the US. Time to ignore slashdot and get back to good beer and sauerkraut...

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

>the fact that free speech is merely an illusion there...

Forgot to take on your pills? You are just plain full of shit. No really, this typical American notion deserves no better words. How dare any of you stupid fucktards to say about the rest of the world they have 'just an illusion of free speech'? Let me repeat, you are full of shit. And an arrogant little twat. Have a nice day, asshole.

BTW, this: http://www.break.com/index/officer-slams-dude-through-window.html

Germany's a police state, lalalala, I can't hear you, Germans are Nazis, Chinese are Commies, lalalala ...

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a German living in Germany for most of my life (about 35 years). I believe what you saw, but I still have to say that this is rather an exception. Regular police you see on the street really just carry a normal pistol with them. Yes, I have seen police more heavily armed, eg at airports, or in front of the American consulate. But I honestly consider it such an extraordinary sight that I really notice it. Maybe there was for some reason a higher (temporary) threat level on that train station?

Re:Schadenfreude

[bbx]

yeah , you're so true :)

Re:Schadenfreude

[HaZardman27]

Why would you feel threatened by tasers? Legally police in the US need to be carrying a non-lethal weapon if they're armed, so they have options before handling their pistol.

Re:Schadenfreude

[jimbolauski]

So you have free speech by you can't freely say the the holocaust didn't happen, In most free countries free speech is the right to say anything no matter how ignorant with out penalty under the law. There are two exemptions yelling fire in a theater and calling for violence, everything else is protected. Germany has limited speech in that they can criticize the government but they are not free to say what they please without the retribution of the government. The fact that you are complicit with less rights doesn't change anything citizens in North Korea and China are fine with their lack or rights but they still are not free.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh stop it.

You act like the Germans would stoop to Gestapo tactics, or something.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

deny the holocaust or praise the unlawful nazi regime.

So you are basically saying that even though it is *illegal* for me to hold a purely personal opinion (denying the holocaust) because the state wants to control what I am thinking, I am free? In other words, you're free as long as you don't commit a thoughtcrime (which is what this essentially is). I guess for narrow enough definitions of freedom, sure...

See, I was under the impression that one of the most basic definitions of freedom was a freedom to hold one's own independent opinion, but I guess I was wrong.

Re:Schadenfreude

[digitig]

Legally police in the US need to be carrying a non-lethal weapon if they're armed, so they have options before handling their pistol.

Maybe, but what has that got to do with tasers?

Re:Schadenfreude

[HaZardman27]

Many of those cases involved violence or aggression towards the offers that tased them. It's still a better option than being shot.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

"Says the guy who does not even have firsthand experience of seeing german police? When talking about mere perceived threat, juding by what i occasionally see on tv news,"

Ahh, I see. TV news is first hand experience in Germany. That's very interesting. I didn't know that.

I guess nationalistic and other nation bashing pride extends to your country too. What a surprise. Two nitwits going at it when there are a slew of other shit of worse going on in other countries. But hey, butt heads all you want.

btw, I've never seen a machine gun period, and I've lived in like 5 major US cities and currently live in a hunting rifle happy suburbia and live near a national guard station. Using your standard, you Germans are clearly fucked in the head, because your police carry machine guns as a matter of course.

Re:Schadenfreude

[digitig]

In all those cases the person ended up dead. I'm not sure that death by taser is a significant improvement over death by gunshot.

My point is that a taser should not be considered a non-lethal weapon -- merely lower lethality than a gun. Calling it "non-lethal" can lead to tasers being used more casually than they should and not being given the respect they deserve.

Re:Schadenfreude

[dunkelfalke]

Most German people don't know the difference between a machine gun, an assault rifle and a submachine gun. They call all of those "machine guns" because they only have seen those in American movies (and the translators often don't know the difference either).

It actually tells a lot about Germany vs USA.

P.S. I have seen lots of machine guns - in a museum.

Re:Schadenfreude

[raju1kabir]

Stateside, that level of armament means either a SWAT team or the regular military.

Or Penn Station, or Wall Street, or half of DC, or or or or or...

Re:Schadenfreude

[HaZardman27]

Definitely. I'm all for police being equipped with pepper spray rather than tasers. I do know for a fact though that the chances of dying from being tased are low; every single Air Force police officer needs to be tased during their training so they can feel what it's like.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

So the US has limited speech as well - you say it yourself that you can't incite violence or shout Fire! in the the theatre.

You may have valid reason for these limitations - but the Germans also think they have valid reasons for their limitations - and they don't remove the fact that you can't say whatever you like.

Still waiting for the day that American posters finally grasp irony.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're not allowed to yell fire in a theatre and you call that free speech ?

So you're not allowed to call for violence and you call that free speech ?

Your complicity with these unjust, unpure laws makes you ... mumble mumble North Korea mumble mumble China ... What the fuck are you talking about ? Your exceptions are ok, other peoples are a vicious attack on the very fundamentals of freedom ?

I was in Berlin ( again ) recently, and happened across the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, a whole block of prime real estate as a deliberate scar in the center of the city. To actually have a law that makes it impossible to deny the countries embarassing, destructive, genocidal past is a thing of character, is a thing of a grown up state, and your religious adherence to an oversimplified soundbite of an idea makes you appear the opposite, shallow, purile and stupid.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Simetrical]

So you have free speech by you can't freely say the the holocaust didn't happen, In most free countries free speech is the right to say anything no matter how ignorant with out penalty under the law. There are two exemptions yelling fire in a theater and calling for violence, everything else is protected.

That's not true. There are a multitude of exceptions even under US law, which has the strongest free speech protections in the world. The general rule is that to restrict speech, the government must show that the measure is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. Some types of speech that are illegal in the US, randomly off the top of my head: defamation; false advertising; inciting crime; cigarette advertising in many contexts; obscenity; lying in court or to police or a grand jury; breaking a non-disclosure agreement; speech that infringes copyright or other intellectual property rights; dissemination of classified information; providing aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war; and lots more. The Wikipedia article has more discussion.

However, it should be said that purely political speech is nearly always protected in the US, unless it directly advocates violence or something like that. Restrictions on free speech in the US are nearly always content-neutral when it comes to politics or ideology (although not so much commercial or other types of speech).

This is the objectionable thing to Americans, I think. Germans are prohibiting some portion of the population from even trying to even convince anyone they're right. If that's allowed, a majority of the population can prevent minority views from even being heard or considered. It might be Nazism today, but it could easily be anything else tomorrow (witness prosecution of some people speaking out against Islam). Cigarette companies might not be able to advertise as much as they'd like in the US, but they can try to convince people to change their minds about that.

Re:Schadenfreude

[hesaigo999ca]

I applaud your retort, and hope that somewhere some lines have been made more apparent to tohers about different cultures, and how someone can speak so freely about another culture without having truly experienced it.

I tend to think someone who has lived there for a few years would be entitled to speak about it, yet this other person had no such claim, therefor I think you were in the right to make his ignorance
come to light.

I do hope things are better in germany then they were let's say 20-25 years ago...then again I have yet to go back there since... I only wish that the earth as a whole had a one unified modus operandie
it would make things much easier on everyone.

Re:Schadenfreude

[St.Creed]

Usually ends up with someone other than the criminal being shot. I.e. the guy who stabbed the egyptian woman in a courtroom in Dresden earlier this year - the cop shot her husband instead of the killer.

Bad example. A lot of the anger in that case being directed towards the cop was not that he missed, but that he was actually aiming for the husband.

Re:Schadenfreude

[KDR_11k]

When a train station looks like it's being prepared for a war there's probably a football game nearby.

Re:Schadenfreude

[KDR_11k]

Most people on the internet call any automatic rifle a machinegun. I've seen plenty of videogame reviews that didn't know the difference between an SMG and an MG.

Re:Schadenfreude

[KDR_11k]

You can hold the opinion but keep it for yourself. If you try to convince anyone else that you're right it's considered an insult to the dead and possibly an attempt to undermine the democratic foundation of the country (because national socialism is anti-democratic).

Re:Schadenfreude

[watergeus]

Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom.

Re:Schadenfreude

[smd75]

Its at least in their history, plus they tried it twice. Maybe if they cant do it, nobody should be allowed to?

Re:Schadenfreude

[stirz]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Germany is not a free country.

Alright. Let's have a look at the German constitution (Grundgesetz, basic law, they call it). I retrieved an official English translation for it via Wikipedia, quote:

1. (1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
2. (2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
3. (3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.

As every governmental decision has to obey to this fundamental rule, why should Germany not be "a free country"? What you say about Nazis is in fact not true. It's quite the opposite: If you spread Nazi ideology you may soon face some time in jail, but not if you protest against neo-Nazism. The censorship of videogames is mainly related to a certain law which forbids to show Nazi-symbols, like the swastika. So, if you want to sell a game there, leave them out, and it can be sold. How could law differentiate between videogames and propaganda posters and allow video games to show those symbols while keeping neo-Nazi propaganda from doing so?

I'd say you depict Germany in a really distorted way. Deducting non-freedom from special Nazi-related laws is a little far fetched, imho.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Anonymous Coward]

Take away their tasers and give them a second gun. If they have a justified reason for shooting you, i'd rather you be dead than just flopping around on the ground with a couple of electrodes in you. (I don't mean you, but the generic you) Also, the more actual criminals that are shot instead of arrested means a lower prison population. the trick is to have in-corruptible policemen with perfect judgement.

Re:Schadenfreude

[digitig]

the trick is to have in-corruptible policemen with perfect judgement.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Re:Schadenfreude

[stirz]

You're not as far off the deutschmark as you think.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Lars T.]

The most recent thing I heard about was that German politicians banned paintball

See, you must live in a country with free speech, because you can claim completely untrue things about another country.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Lars T.]

The German police certainly sound more threatening.

That's because the American police makes no sound before tasing you.

Re:Schadenfreude

[Lars T.]

What history books were you smoking?

Re:Schadenfreude

[ProzacPatient]

If you spread Nazi ideology you may soon face some time in jail, but not if you protest against neo-Nazism. The censorship of videogames is mainly related to a certain law which forbids to show Nazi-symbols, like the swastika. So, if you want to sell a game there, leave them out, and it can be sold. How could law differentiate between videogames and propaganda posters and allow video games to show those symbols while keeping neo-Nazi propaganda from doing so?

Essentially you're saying that a German citizen can only freely express themselves in a way the government deems appropriate.

With all due respect to Germans, I was comparing their government to several other western countries considered to be apart of the "Free World"; the Commonwealth (UK, Canada, Australia, etc...), Switzerland, Sweden and the United States.

The state should not distinguish between "propaganda" and "speech" because this gives the government a huge amount of power to deem other types of speech or expression as inappropriate.
The last time the United States tried to pull a stunt like that was "The House Committee on UnAmerican Activities" from the infamous red scare in the 50s up into the mid-70s.
The United States was afraid of enemy (in this case Nazis, then later communists) propaganda from spreading through the country and in the process people's fundamental freedoms were broken ironically in the name of freedom. Eventually the committee was disbanded sometime in the mid-70s from insurmountable pressure and protest in regard to personal liberties.

From what I can tell Germany's general legislation seems to be more of a "Think of the children!" rather then focused on liberty.

Maybe things are different in Germany and Germans don't have much of a problem with it but from my perspective I was raised in a country which promotes freedom of speech as the utmost important principal ever created and somehow I though that the rest of the western world would also be apart of this idea rather then subscribing to the thought-control legislation of other types of governments.

Re:Schadenfreude

[stirz]

Essentially you're saying that a German citizen can only freely express themselves in a way the government deems appropriate.

I think you miss the essential point here: Germany was fortunately liberated in 1944/45 by the Allies. The Allies enforced the process of Denazification, which envolved several actions, first and foremost the removal of Nazi symbolism of official buildings, renaming of streets and places which the Nazis had given names of their own (mostly Hitler's). The Allies were keen to prevent any uprising of Nazi terror once and for all. So, since 1949, the year when both German states were founded, the Germans (in the West as well as in the East) decided to make it a prime directive of their policy to keep fascism down. So, your freedom of speech in Germany is protected by the state, as long as you do not praise Nazism or deny the existence of the Holocaust. That's it. And the reason is not censorship as such, but a very special, mostly German and Austrian, responsibility to keep a promise that was given after 1945: not to let facism rise a again on German soil.

From what I can tell Germany's general legislation seems to be more of a "Think of the children!" rather then focused on liberty.

The fact that children aren't allowed to buy/consume things that adults may, is a quite different discussion. For example, people under 18 aren't allowed to consume pornography as well as hard alcoholic beverages (beer is allowed for everyone under 17, hey they're the Germans :-) ). I think, you would call it a violation of the freedom of speech, when your six-year old is kept from buying a bunch of sex-magazines on his way home from school.
Nazi symbolism is forbidden for any German, regardless of age, sex, profession, belief, etc. It may only depicted for educational reasons (museums or historic textbooks, as far as I know). The spreading of "Mein Kampf", Hitler's first book, is for example not forbidden by the state, but of the current copyright holder.

By the way: Have you ever been Germany or Europe, at least?

Re:Schadenfreude

[shnull]

what are bad words ? are these words with free will ? or are these words a work of the devil ? who is the devil? have you seen it ? have you seen that god-guy lately perhaps ? are you one of those rightwing catholics we hear so much about ? no ... i know, hippie ? i presume ?

Ridiculous.

[MikeFM]

If you come to my website then I, or my designated party, have the right to record the fact that you came to my website. If you don't like it then don't use the web. Is it also against the law to record what customers come in the door of your brick and mortar store in Germany?

Re:Ridiculous.

[sopssa]

There are however data protection laws in place and especially about storing personal information in other countries. From the article:

This isn’t the first time German privacy protection officials have voiced their concerns about the Google Analytics service, as it had earlier criticized the search giant over keeping everyone ‘in the dark’ about which information they’re collecting exactly and how much identifiable data is sent to and stored on servers located on U.S. soil. German laws prohibit such data to leave the country, they claim.

If you or your website is giving such personal info to other party and it's stored elsewhere, you will be just as liable. And let's be honest, Google is able to profile people really good. German authorities are especially worried about political parties and pharmaceutical companies websites.

Re:Ridiculous.

[martin-boundary]

No. What people end up accepting in the States is their business, but the EU has a number of data protection principles (see section 2.2). Veiled third party advertising bugs don't follow those principles.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not really about you recording the fact that someone came to your website. The article says that there are worries that Google could further use the data, and eg connect it with the data they might have from Google Mail or other sites using Google Analytics, thus generating profiles about habits and preferences etc. If you use Google Mail, it is your own decision, but you might not be aware if you visit a site using Google Analytics and that not only the site owner records the fact that you were there, but Google knows, too (including all other Google Analytics sites you were visiting).

According to the article, nothing is decided. There is also some dispute whether the above scenario is possible under Google's own usage terms. Currently, it's a discussion among the data protection officials from the various German states. So, currently, they are basically doing their job.

Re:Ridiculous.

[nurb432]

You don't have that right if the laws don't give it to you. Don't like the laws, move elsewhere.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Thinboy00]

What about cookies?

Re:Ridiculous.

[rrohbeck]

If you run that website in Germany, it is illegal for you to save customers' personal data longer than X days.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Tom]

Is it also against the law to record what customers come in the door of your brick and mortar store in Germany?

Depends. It is illegal to store their name, home address, passport number and blood type just because they wanted to shop at your place, yes.

And rightly so. You do business under the law of the land, so the law of the land tells you how you can do it. If you don't like it, you can shove off to some place in the middle of Africa where they don't have laws.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you run that website in Germany, it is illegal for you to save customers' personal data longer than X days.

Germany is using Roman numerals again?

Re:Ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

you would think the Germans would be all over this based on past history.

Re:Ridiculous.

[rrohbeck]

OK, s/X/$X/.

Re:Ridiculous.

[MikeFM]

Businesses will.

Re:Ridiculous.

[MikeFM]

So turn off cookies. I don't need them to track you.

Re:Ridiculous.

[MikeFM]

Analytics isn't really an advertising tool. It just keeps statistics on things obvious to the web server when you connect to it. IP address, location, referring page, browser, etc. It's like knowing that a middle-aged white male in a red sweatshirt came in the door.

Re:Ridiculous.

[MikeFM]

It's not personal information. It's anonymous stats.

Re:Ridiculous.

[george14215]

No. What people end up accepting in the States is their business, but the EU has a number of data protection principles (see section 2.2). Veiled third party advertising bugs don't follow those principles.

Agreed. I would say that similar concerns exist for allowing third party companies in other countries do x-ray analysis or tax returns on behalf of one's citizens. There may be business ramifications for breach of privacy but very little civil/criminal ramifications.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Use Ghostery Firefox extension

Re:Ridiculous.

[darthwader]

It's not quite as cut-and-dry as you think.

It could very well be illegal to follow you around the store and record every product you looked at, and then follow you around the library and see every book you look at (and then examine the records to see what you have ever checked out), then followed you to the video store and measured exactly how much time you spent looking at each title (and also examine your rental history).

The Germans lived through both the Nazis and with the KGB. They have a good reason to be sensitive about protecting people's privacy.

Re:Ridiculous.

[LordLimecat]

What constitutes personal?

Also, does this apply to cookies? The data isnt actually stored on your server, but on the client machines...

Re:Ridiculous.

[introspekt.i]

But if we get rights from laws, who gives laws rights so the laws can give us rights?

Re:Ridiculous.

[rrohbeck]

A "usage profile" for a user ID is also considered illegal if the user hasn't opted in or it is at least clear that the data is being collected. This is because those stats are not really anonymous. If they were, Google wouldn't be interested in them. It has been shown repeatedly that tracking back "anonymous" profiles to a RL user isn't hard if you have enough data.

Re:Ridiculous.

[FleaPlus]

It's not really about you recording the fact that someone came to your website. The article says that there are worries that Google could further use the data, and eg connect it with the data they might have from Google Mail or other sites using Google Analytics, thus generating profiles about habits and preferences etc.

So collecting data is ok, but it's forbidden to run certain algorithms on the collected data? Something tells me this isn't a particularly sustainable arrangement.

Re:Ridiculous.

[multi io]

So collecting data is ok, but it's forbidden to run certain algorithms on the collected data?

No. It's forbidden to send the data to a 3rd party like Google without the website vistor's consent. Which is what a website operator using Google Analytics apparently does.

Re:Ridiculous.

[BrokenHalo]

And let's be honest, Google is able to profile people really good.

But it's also perfectly possible to limit what it can do. There are other ways, but one simple approach is to put entries in your hosts file to refuse connections from any servers you don't want to hear from. It's a simple enough matter to get a list.

Re:Ridiculous.

[BrokenHalo]

Laws don't give you rights. They can only take them away.

Re:Ridiculous.

[mister_playboy]

The problem is that they really don't move. They merely claim they are based in the Cayman Islands to get out of taxes while staying right where they are. If they actually picked up and moved to the Cayman Islands, then I would have no problem with it.

The current "have your cake and eat it, too" situation is bullshit.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has Germany ever had to worry about political parties or "pharmaceutical" companies?

Re:Ridiculous.

[zapakh]

But if we get rights from laws, who gives laws rights so the laws can give us rights?

Other laws. Some might call it circular reasoning, but I prefer to think of it as having no loose ends.

Re:Ridiculous.

[noidentity]

So if a German tells someone something personal, and that someone leaves the country, he's broken the law? Or if a German is in an online chat with someone outside the country and shares something personal, the online chat has broken the law? The main question for me is why the law is telling a person what and who he can share information with, even though he can just decide to keep it to himself if he's concerned about privacy.

Re:Ridiculous.

[dave420]

I know, I know - it's Slashdot, so R'ing TFA is out of the question. The issue is not people sharing their own data with others, but a website you visit sending information to a third party overseas. So in your IRC example, it'd be like someone taking a server log of a chat between to Germans, on a German server, and sending it to a company outside Germany, without the knowledge of the chat participants. Kind of different to your example.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Jesus_666]

you might not be aware if you visit a site using Google Analytics

Except that for me the GA servers are exceedingly slow (unlike about everything else Google hosts) so GA added ten to thirty seconds of loading time to every page using it until I stopped at at the DNS level.

Reduced GA usage can only improve the web.

Re:Ridiculous.

[ChienAndalu]

And rightly so. You do business under the law of the land, so the law of the land tells you how you can do it. If you don't like it, you can shove off to some place in the middle of Africa where they don't have laws.

Maybe the law of the land is bullshit? Maybe there is another alternative to "accepting all existing and planned laws" than living in Africa?

Re:Ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, fuck you. You have no rights to store my personal data whatsoever.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Tom]

Maybe the law of the land is bullshit? Maybe there is another alternative to "accepting all existing and planned laws" than living in Africa?

Yes, there is. In fact, there are several, among them are elections, writing to your representative, setting up a lobby group. Whining on /. isn't one of them.

Oh, wait, all that already happened. The law didn't fall from the heavens. We Germans sometimes value privacy higher than the inalienable right of corporations to make money. Sorry for that.

Re:Ridiculous.

[js_sebastian]

A "usage profile" for a user ID is also considered illegal if the user hasn't opted in or it is at least clear that the data is being collected. This is because those stats are not really anonymous. If they were, Google wouldn't be interested in them. It has been shown repeatedly that tracking back "anonymous" profiles to a RL user isn't hard if you have enough data.

Yes it has, most recently on the netflix dataset: "Robust De-anonymization of Large Sparse Datasets" http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf

Re:Ridiculous.

[ChienAndalu]

Yes, there is. In fact, there are several, among them are elections, writing to your representative, setting up a lobby group.

You forgot: Seeing the law as the steaming pile of bullshit it is and taking your business out of Germany.

We Germans sometimes value privacy higher than the inalienable right of corporations to make money. Sorry for that.

Maybe you, as a person, do. Your government certainly doesn't value privacy at all..

If you don't wan't to be tracked by Google on the internet, don't establish a connection to Google's computers. If you don't know how to avoid it, learn how to use your browser.

This is just a plot for internet lawyers (Gravenreuths) to extort money out of people.

Re:Ridiculous.

[noidentity]

So in your IRC example, it'd be like someone taking a server log of a chat between to Germans, on a German server, and sending it to a company outside Germany, without the knowledge of the chat participants. Kind of different to your example.

And how is this not already covered by contract law? If you don't want the conversation shared, don't join chat servers which don't guarantee this. If they break that, you can sue for breach of contract. Why does a government need to treat this issue specially?

Re:Ridiculous.

[dave420]

You have to visit a webpage to view the Ts & Cs of said website, so unless each and every website starts with a disclaimer outlining exactly what data the site will collect and what it will do with it, your idea is somewhat slightly flawed. If the government regulates it, which it definitely should (data protection is very important), then that's one more piece of protection against it. The German government has stated that people shouldn't have to worry about whether an online service will be selling/sending their data abroad, that none of them should do it. Relying on people studying fine-print before using such a service is ridiculous.

Re:Ridiculous.

[MrMarket]

Does Google Analytics collect *personally identifiable* information. Was was not aware that I could see the names or unique identifiers of people visiting my site.

Re:Ridiculous.

[raju1kabir]

It's forbidden to send the data to a 3rd party like Google without the website vistor's consent. Which is what a website operator using Google Analytics apparently does.

No, it's what the German user's web browser does. They can easily stop it with the right settings. It would make a lot more sense to educate people about those settings, or even to request that computers sold in Germany come with them by default, than to try to change the way the web works.

Re:Ridiculous.

[sopssa]

The issue isn't that website owners could see names/ID's, but that Google has them. But the website owners are liable because they're sending that info to Google.

Re:Ridiculous.

[sopssa]

No, it's what the German user's web browser does. They can easily stop it with the right settings. It would make a lot more sense to educate people about those settings, or even to request that computers sold in Germany come with them by default, than to try to change the way the web works.

This is like saying "But it's not the website infecting the visitors computer with a virus, his browser is doing that! He could easily stop this with the right settings!"

Re:Ridiculous.

[KDR_11k]

They have to explicitly state that your actions will be recorded before you enter the supervised area. To be able to share your data they must have you sign a waiver because by default you have the right that this data has to remain confidential. This applies to surveillance videos primarily (stores must have a sign that they use video surveillance and the cameras must not cover areas outside of the marked places) but extends to websites and other virtual public spaces as well.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Tom]

You forgot: Seeing the law as the steaming pile of bullshit it is and taking your business out of Germany.

No, I didn't forget that. I initially said "If you do business under the law of the land..."

This is just a plot for internet lawyers (Gravenreuths) to extort money out of people.

Oh dear, now you're mixing things up a lot. Gravenreuth has been thrown out of the picture years ago. By the same government you accuse of cooperating with him.

No, the people you want to look at are called Ursula von der Leyen (minister for families, she invented the "stop" sign censorship, which is why her nickname is Zensursula (censor-sula) and Wolfgang Schäuble, who used to be the minister for the interior, and who many reputable sources claim is very likely suffering from PTSD after an assassination attempt on him many years ago that left him crippled in a wheelchair. His medical records are sealed by the government.

And yes, the government doesn't like privacy very much. However, we also have courts to watch out for us, just like you do, and they are very influential. A lot of bad laws get thrown out or modified by the high courts.

Re:Ridiculous.

[ChienAndalu]

His medical records are sealed by the government.

You say it as if it was a bad thing.

Oh dear, now you're mixing things up a lot. Gravenreuth has been thrown out of the picture years ago. By the same government you accuse of cooperating with him.

The laws he exploited are still there and get worse. There will be new ones.

And yes, the government doesn't like privacy very much. However, we also have courts to watch out for us, just like you do, and they are very influential. A lot of bad laws get thrown out or modified by the high courts.

Still, I don't see how giving me a fee because my website uses Google analytics is protecting anyones privacy. I can't tell more from Google analytics than from any other tracker system and there certainly isn't any functionality to track individual users. Tracking can be done however by including *any* resource on my site to a foreign host. Should we fine people using AdSense too? Embedding Lolcats? Or including an external javascript library, just because somebody *could* track you with it?

The crazy thing is that all this is done in the name of fighting "Big Brother", which is supposedly google. How did I miss the chapter "How Winston Smith defeated the televisors by entering echo 127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com >> /etc/hosts"?

Re:Ridiculous.

[Tom]

>His medical records are sealed by the government.
You say it as if it was a bad thing.

Yes, I do. I believe we have a right to know whether or not the people who rule us are sane.
There are serious medical experts who have doubts about Mr. Schäubles sanity.

The crazy thing is that all this is done in the name of fighting "Big Brother", which is supposedly google. How did I miss the chapter "How Winston Smith defeated the televisors by entering echo 127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com >> /etc/hosts"?

Just because it is technically possible to defeat a surveilance system doesn't make it legal. There are various ways to defeat CCTV cameras (infrared laser pointers used to work great, no idea about details on the current systems). But still there are laws regulating the installation of CCTV.

Google is a privacy concern due to the sheer amount of data they collect and use. Even the majority of /. readers agree on that. The difference is that most of us can help ourselves - as your example shows. Most of the non-tech people can't. They need the government to stop in.

Re:Ridiculous.

[ChienAndalu]

Yes, I do. I believe we have a right to know whether or not the people who rule us are sane.
There are serious medical experts who have doubts about Mr. Schäubles sanity.

So you want a doctor to examine him? Fine. It sounded like you wanted politicians to give up their privacy.

Just because it is technically possible to defeat a surveilance system doesn't make it legal.

Trust me, modifying your hosts file and not connecting to a server is perfectly legal. Or has that already changed with "Vorratsdatenspeicherung"?

Google is a privacy concern due to the sheer amount of data they collect and use. Even the majority of /. readers agree on that. The difference is that most of us can help ourselves - as your example shows. Most of the non-tech people can't. They need the government to stop in.

As I already said, the data on Google analytics is comparable to any other tracking system.
You can speculate on all kinds of sinister stuff they do with the data, but don't anything for sure know unless you have access to Googles computers, which is probably what comes next. But hey, all in the name of fighting Big Brother. Soon you'll have to get a license for your webserver and government regularly controls that you don't have any logfiles. For a few euros, of course.

Laypersons can install all kinds of add-ons and anonymizing software if they care about not being tracked. Firefox and Chrome (Googles Browser) already have a stealth mode.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Lars T.]

It's not personal information. It's anonymous stats.

Just like an image from a CCTV camera is anonymous data - but wait, that's the evil government, not a benevolent corporation that can pull together endless amounts of "anonymous" information and create a exact profile of you.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Tom]

So you want a doctor to examine him? Fine. It sounded like you wanted politicians to give up their privacy.

Not any more than they ask everyone else to do so. In fact, if anyone deserves to have his privacy violated, it's Schäuble, because he's done more to harm privacy than anyone else in recent history in Germany.

But no, the problem is that a doctor has examined him, and they've sealed the results. I don't care about the details, but they aren't even telling us whether the guy is sane or insane, and as he's a member of the government, I think that does matter a little.

> Just because it is technically possible to defeat a surveilance system doesn't make it legal.

Trust me, modifying your hosts file and not connecting to a server is perfectly legal. Or has that already changed with "Vorratsdatenspeicherung"?"

I didn't mean the defeating is legal. I meant the surveilance system. Other example: The fact that kevlar exists doesn't make it legal to shoot people. See what I mean? That you can bypass online tracking does not in itself make online tracking legal.

But hey, all in the name of fighting Big Brother. Soon you'll have to get a license for your webserver and government regularly controls that you don't have any logfiles. For a few euros, of course.

That's got nothing to do with the argument, and at least AFAIK nobody has proposed something like that. This is not about government control, and never has been. It's about the government telling you that shooting people is illegal. Yes, even though kevlar exists. And yes, even if they actually wear a kevlar vest. And yes, even if you're a corporation.

I don't see government controls for guns on every street corner, even though gun ownership is largely illegal in Germany (there are exceptions, but very few). I also don't see them handing out "this citizen has no guns" license cards for a fee.

I think you're blinded by ideology and have been missing the point for a while now.

Re:Ridiculous.

[ChienAndalu]

I didn't mean the defeating is legal. I meant the surveilance system. Other example: The fact that kevlar exists doesn't make it legal to shoot people. See what I mean? That you can bypass online tracking does not in itself make online tracking legal.

You haven't established that Google has anything like a "surveillance system", and now you compare logging http requests is the same as shooting people? Bit of a stretch, don't you think?

I don't see government controls for guns on every street corner, even though gun ownership is largely illegal in Germany (there are exceptions, but very few). I also don't see them handing out "this citizen has no guns" license cards for a fee.

Because your gun analogy doesn't work one bit.

You want government to restrict "surveillance systems", however you define them. The fact of the matter is you can build a surveillance system with *any* tracker or logging system. People surf web pages, web pages embed *lots* of content from other web pages, the requests sent to those third party servers can be thrown away, or can be stored. Using the Google analytics script is no different than using an external javascript library on your web page or even a lolcat picture. You cannot guarantee that the hosts of either of them doesn't build a "surveillance system" with the requests, except when you check their systems.

I think you're blinded by ideology and have been missing the point for a while now.

It's pretty difficult to see your point when you talk about guns and kevlar.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Tom]

you compare logging http requests is the same as shooting people?

No, I don't. I am comparing the legality of these items, same as you can compare the colour of a car to the colour of a dress without implying that the dress runs on gass and the car has a nice lady inside.

The fact of the matter is you can build a surveillance system with *any* tracker or logging system.

And the point is? There's a million ways to kill people. We don't need a million laws for that, all we need is the one that says "killing someone is illegal".

Same for the tracking systems. The technical details are irrelevant. All we need is a law that says "it's illegal to track someone".

Of course, you can go into legal details about each of them, e.g. add "without their consent" to the 2nd, or "unless in self-defense" to the first. The point still is that the technical details don't matter. The law doesn't care much if you stab, shoot or strangle someone. Likewise, the law doesn't care if you use Javascript, web-bugs or a statistics script.

Re:Ridiculous.

[ChienAndalu]

you compare logging http requests is the same as shooting people?

No, I don't. I am comparing the legality of these items, same as you can compare the colour of a car to the colour of a dress without implying that the dress runs on gass and the car has a nice lady inside.

Well the definition of physically harming people is pretty straightforward. Your definition of "illegal tracking" is nonexistant and about as clear as "don't be evil".

And the point is? There's a million ways to kill people. We don't need a million laws for that, all we need is the one that says "killing someone is illegal".

Because - again - your analogy is ridiculous. Tracking can mean all sorts of things, killing is straightforward.

Is keeping logfiles tracking? Is targeted advertising tracking? Is amazons "Users who bought X also bought Y" tracking? Some people think the latter is scary, I think it can be quite handy.

What aspects of GA are illegal in your opinion?

Define what you mean.

Re:Ridiculous.

[Tom]

Your definition of "illegal tracking" is nonexistant and about as clear as "don't be evil".

Agreed. However, a legal definition does exist, and it's the courts job to sort out whether or not it applies to a given specific case. Which is exactly what's going on here, right?

Define what you mean.

What I mean doesn't mean much in the end. What's important is whether or not the courts rule that privacy laws are applicable here.

Blocked with NoScript

[misiu_mp]

I found about google analytics when I started using the NoScript plugin. Its used almost everywhere!

Re:Blocked with NoScript

[Itninja]

Me too. I have it auto-blocked. I don't need my visits being amalgamated by the Googbots thank you very much.

Re:Blocked with NoScript

[al0ha]

Actually, NoScript only does part of the job, google-analytics.com, coremetrics.com, any many other ad/tracking entities sneak around NoScript on many sites, including /.

Install the RequestPolicy add-on and browse /. again, you will see what I mean.

Re:Blocked with NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, NoScript only does part of the job, google-analytics.com, coremetrics.com, any many other ad/tracking entities sneak around NoScript on many sites, including /.

Fortunately, they don't sneak around a HOSTS file very easily. (I suppose they could replace themselves with their own IP addresses, but that defeats the purpose of DNS, and would render them visually indistinguishable from malware. Which, in a sense, they are...)

Re:Blocked with NoScript

[introspekt.i]

Fortunately, they don't sneak around a HOSTS file very easily.

Buy a new domain and IP address and obfuscate yourself. Boom, pwned the HOSTS file.

Re:Blocked with NoScript

[nonregistered]

Thanks, al0ha! I installed RequestPolicy and Slashdot is readable again: fast, sleek, non-graphical. I love it!

Re:Blocked with NoScript

[maxwell demon]

I now did so, but I got no google-analytics or similar. Only fsdn.com. I don't know if it's due to NoScript or Adblock Plus, though.

Re:Blocked with NoScript

[mister_playboy]

Whoa... very cool! Thank you.

Re:Blocked with NoScript

[bazorg]

Use a HOSTS file that is reviewed by many people sharing the objective of ridding themselves of malware, and boom, there goes the $$$ spent on that new domain. http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

Re:Blocked with NoScript

[Tim C]

Something tells me they'd run out of patience with buying a new domain, setting up the DNS for it, and pushing the change out to their customers long before I would run out of patience with editing my hosts file.

Re:Blocked with NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Maxwell Demon's response above, NoScript appears to be sufficient for me. However, I have disabled the "Accept third-party cookies" option, which might be in play.

- T

10 Years ago...

[NoYob]

... €50,000 (about $75,000)

10 Years ago it would have read:

€75,000 (about $50,000)

*sigh*

Re:10 Years ago...

[ZigiSamblak]

The Euro was introduced in 2002. 10 years ago that would have been in Deutschmark.

Re:10 Years ago...

[misiu_mp]

FYI: In 2000 1 dollar was 1.083 euros (enl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tables_of_historical_exchange_rates_to_the_USD). Why would it be 25000 eur more ten years ago? Anyway, 75000/1.083 is 69250.

Re:10 Years ago...

[NoYob]

But it's still disappointing. And I don't think the Dollar will ever get back to where it was.

Re:10 Years ago...

[NoYob]

7,8,9, 10 ...years ago gets to be all the same after a while. No, I can't remember what I had for breakfast this morning, either.

Re:10 Years ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Euro was introduced in 2002. 10 years ago that would have been in Deutschmark.

The Euro was introduced January 1st, 1999. In 2002, the Euro cash was introduced, up til then, the old national coins and bills were used as "regional" denominations of the Euro. But they were no independent currencies anymore.

Re:10 Years ago...

[Corporate Troll]

Oh, bull.... I remember the opposite times (I am European), and back then I'd never though I'd even see parity. It just takes one big economic and/or political blunder of the EU to set back the ticker.

Re:10 Years ago...

[shermo]

The Euro was introduced in 2002

Wish I could get mod points for posting blatently incorrect information.

Re:10 Years ago...

[dunkelfalke]

I was pretty sure Euro would be going strong and for a long time at that, even back then. Even while Americans laughed at it.

Re:10 Years ago...

[Corporate Troll]

It didn't look like that in the first two years... All really went downhill for the dollar when the US started printing money like crazy to fund a specific war. I'm not saying that the Euro isn't strong on its own merit, but the disproportion is due to an American political decision. We are not shielded from making similar mistakes. That was what I meant to say with my post.

What's the rational?

[XPeter]

Is the German government trying to downsize Google by charging premiums who use the service they offer? If this is the case, it isn't a bad idea. (I love Google as much as the next guy, but they really are everywhere, and I'm not sure how long Paul Buchheit's slogan will hold up)

Now only if we could charge the idiots who buy ARM's here in the states...

Re:What's the rational?

[Jesus_666]

The rationale is in getting people to stop sharing user data with third parties in foreign countries. Google isn't the specific target of the corresponding legislation, it's just a high-profile target and I doubt we'd see a story about any other analytics service found in violation of EU privacy law.

Re:What's the rational?

[raju1kabir]

Perhaps a German company that sells server-side analytics software has paid off someone in the government. Because such a company would suddenly become very profitable.

Open source?

[DriedClexler]

"Do, we didn't illegally disclose your data; we open-sourced it!"

Oh noes! They stored a cookie!

[chickenarise]

"The amount of data Google collects from everywhere on the Internet is indeed huge, and website owners should be using a local open source alternative to keep visitor data private." Classic FUD, all that google analytics does is store a simple cookie so that it can differentiate between page loads, unique visits, and return visits. The other data mining google does doesn't involve google analytics.

Re:Oh noes! They stored a cookie!

[sopssa]

And they are storing that cookie everywhere on the internet now a days. Google can build a pretty accurate profile about you (unless you've blocked it, but 'casual' people usually don't)

Have you actually used the Analytics service? It shows very detailed information about visitors, where they are coming from and what they do on the website. There's tons of statistics and other stuff available, and Google can track the individual people across the internet.

Re:Oh noes! They stored a cookie!

[icebraining]

Google Analytics records how many times you have been to the site, for report purposes. Now multiply by the number of websites that have Analytics "installed" and it's pretty clear that Google can make a good profile of almost all your web accesses.

Re:Oh noes! They stored a cookie!

[Anonymous Coward]

So how could you possibly tell whether I've returned to a site or visited it only once? Do you know of any way other than storing all sites I visit?

And who the hell modded you informative? You effectively say this is FUD, because they just store is every site I visit. FUD usually means that something is wrong or out of proportion.

What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browser?

[Maxo-Texas]

Google Analytics

Just behind doubleclick.net

It never makes a noticeable difference to have both disabled so far.

Another reason to avoid Internet Explorer until it gets a no script equivalent (which it never will).

Has Google ever betrayed our trust?

[SheepFister]

I don't understand people saying that Google knows too much about each of us. Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention as of late, but has Google ever done wrong by their users? And besides, as an entirely uninteresting person, I don't really care if Google knows my surfing habits. I hear the same argument against the club cards at supermarkets, and the same response applies. I don't care if the supermarket "Man" knows that I buy excessive amounts of phallic vegetables and personal lubricant (unrelated).

Re:Has Google ever betrayed our trust?

[Ethanol-fueled]

as an entirely uninteresting person

Um...SheepFister? Is that legal in Germany?

Though I second your disregard for club cards's privacy issues, because none of the info on the application is verified. After writing B.S. information on a few applications, I just started using my friend's club card (entering the phone number on the keypad), and everytime I check out they say "Thanks, mister Robertson* ", even though that's not me.

*names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Re:Has Google ever betrayed our trust?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand people saying that Google knows too much about each of us. [...] has Google ever done wrong by their users? And besides [...] I don't really care if Google knows my surfing habits. I hear the same argument against the club cards at supermarkets, and the same response applies.

Thank you for not caring. This is not about google but the

Over here in the real world, there is quite a difference between an opt-in scheme and the default assumption that your visitors don't mind you keeping every bit of information you can. "Well, then they shouldn't visit me!" you say, ignoring the huge power differential between the average visitor (consumer) and website owner (vendor).

Re:Has Google ever betrayed our trust?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're talking about publicly traded corporations, it's not enough that their top management seems to be a nice, community-oriented group of guys. All it takes is a disappointing year or two and the shareholders start demanding changes... and that generally involves putting numbers-oriented SVP's in charge who are known for kicking butt and punching up the bottom line. Cherished company traditions, such as decency to employees, business partners, and community, have a tendency to fall by the wayside.

Re:Has Google ever betrayed our trust?

[PPH]

but has Google ever done wrong by their users?

And would you ever know? Are you sure that the prices you find on line are the same ones I see? Some manufacturers of luxury goods might not even want "your kind" seen in public with their product (replace "your kind" with whatever socio-economic group you want). Maybe you can't even see their web pages in a search.

I don't really care if Google knows my surfing habits. I hear the same argument against the club cards at supermarkets, and the same response applies.

In addition to the loyalty club discount, I also get an additional percentage knocked off at the cash register. Plus, I get rebates. Because they like me. I'm a desirable customer. You, not so much.

Re:Has Google ever betrayed our trust?

[KlaasVaak]

Google is already the most subpoenaed company in the US. It's the greatest christmas gift ever for the government and intelligence services, all the data centralized in one place you don't need to do some hard searching anymore just demand the data from google,

Re:Has Google ever betrayed our trust?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care if the supermarket "Man" knows that I buy excessive amounts of phallic vegetables and personal lubricant (unrelated).

"We're sorry, SheepFister, but we're denying your claim on the grounds that those hemmoroids were a pre-existing condition. And does your cardiologist know just how much fat there is in a whole lamb, bought live from even the most organic community-supported agriculture co-op? You got any idea how much fat there is in lamb?"

Sure, they're making an incorrect assumption - that the lamb is for eating, and that the 'roids come from eating too much red meat and not enough fiber.

So you could count yourself lucky that they didn't take your name at face value.

But to get serious, would your insurance premiums be any lower if they knew that you (according to Google Analytics .js time-on-page stats) spend several hours a day sitting on a chair, while reading Slashdot? Are you sure they wouldn't consider 'roids a self-inflicted injury?

Re:Has Google ever betrayed our trust?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Europe we had a bunch of registries that never betrayed our trust and were in fact quite useful to have.

Then some dude called Hitler rolled in and started using these same registries for totally different purposes.

"I have nothing to hide" is a dumb statement because you have no idea who you're not-hiding it from somewhere down the line.

Re:Has Google ever betrayed our trust?

[Anonymous Coward]

as an entirely uninteresting person

Um...SheepFister? Is that legal in Germany?
 

Yes, if the sheep consents and is not harmed in the process.

Complete nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Sir or Madam,
this is acutally complete nonsense.
If you choose to publish, you have no right whatsoever to track who is reading your publication for what reason.

Re:Complete nonsense.

[indi0144]

Yes I DO HAVE THE RIGHT I'm paying the hosting, I'm the one designing and coding the scripts so everyone in my target can get served a useful website. I use GA so I can know the average screen size = so I can design a better layout. I know where are my visitors coming from in detail that helps me to track and prevent slashdotings, take a look in the beta feature "intelligence". I know whats the most visited content and how much time people reads a random page, so I can plan for better content for my visitors. I can set up a weekly email to my client with the statistics so I save a lot of time and get new ideas from my client to fine tune things or make new stuff, that means more cash for me.

I can't see anything on the GA site that can help me to profile someone say: "Oh is this Argentinian 23yo advertising student who is stealing my brief form scripts again" All I know it's "I had a spike in traffic from Argentina and the only visited page was the brief form" I really doubt Google hires some guy to parse every GA account because you need a meat and bone AI to make a profile from the GA data.

You're very paranoid, the only thing Google capitalize from GA is the integration with AdSense and maybe they hope that if we have more insight about our visitors we can make better sites, who drive more visits ergo more eyes on the ads.

OTOH I really appreciate the link to Piwick and I will give it a try, is not that GA is the only one in the business of analytics, they happen the be better one right now.

Also <b>it's just me or are we seeing a flood in news/spins that try to portray a "bad Google"?</b>

(stupid /code_ate_my_html_tags_bug it's stupid)

Re:Complete nonsense.

[Richard_at_work]

If we were talking about a traditional book, then I would agree with you. However, we are not - we are talking about the end user directly requesting the publication from you and presenting a wealth of data at the same time as the request.

If you don't like that data collected, then don't present it. Its that simple.

Re:Complete nonsense.

[Jesus_666]

Nobody cares about you getting detailed statistics about your users. Do so, if it helps improve your website.

The German privacy protection officials are just noting that GA means gathering personal data in the EU and sending it to a country with lesser data protection standards, which EU privacy law forbids. Enumerating which bits of personal data can be used to identify a person is not a good idea as technology changes faster then legislation does so the only sensible thing is to protect all of it.

I'd rather have a law that forces me to use on-server analytics than one that allows companies to send my data to spammers under some flimsy premise.

Re:Complete nonsense.

[mike2R]

Don't be a fool.

You are using my computer, not reading my book. Of course I have the right to keep records of that usage.

Re:good

[Thinboy00]

Adblock Plus doesn't block anything by default. It does present you with a list of filter subscriptions. Just install EasyPrivacy from the same folks who probably made the subscription you use now (EasyList).

Oh, that will improve things

[isomeme]

Yes, I certainly want my personal data tracked and stored by 200 small-to-medium businesses that don't understand net security rather than one company with the knowledge and resources to do it well. I feel safer already!

Re:Oh, that will improve things

[yuhong]

Yea, on one hand, it would distribute rather than centralize the data. But on the other hand, the companies that the data would be distributed across can vary.

Re:Oh, that will improve things

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is, when I'm out to slaughter everyone with the ridiculous name of 'isomeme', it's unlikely I'll ever approach these 200 SMB's. Quite likely I'll turn to Google instead - it's just easier. Or maybe to the disgruntled Google employee.

Whether you approach this from a War point of view (central registry) or a Technical one (single point of failure), you can't deny Google being a potential risk.

Hell froze over.

[SharpFang]

Government wants to ban a proprietary tool serving obtaining vast amounts of data about the net users by a big corporation, without the users' content. The government suggests an open-source alternative.

Slashdot crowd violently opposes.

brb checking if RMS applied for a job at Microsoft.

Re:Hell froze over.

[Kalriath]

Said big corporation is Google. Google can't do wrong, you know?

Re:Hell froze over.

[Asic Eng]

The government is German, the company is American. That triggers the "my tribe vs your tribe" reflex, which so often overrides rational thought.

Re:25% of all american home owners

[Anonymous Coward]

wtf who modded this funny and what the fuck does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

Re:What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browse

[Enleth]

Well, it makes. For the website author who just wants to have the goddamned statistics presented in a convinient, easy-to-digest format to be able to focus on actual improvements to the website, and not on wrestling with half-arsed local statistics generators that use access logs, 1px images, session cookies and somesuch.

As a website admin, I'd gladly switch to a solution that does not raise such concerns as GA, but there is none of comparable quality and I'm not in position to make my own with an appropriate feature set. Piwik is somewhat close, but it doesn't support PostgreSQL, which is a show-stopper for me - installing a second RDBMS just for a single auxiliary application is out of question. Besides, it's still probably going to be blocked by NoScript and the likes.

So, what other options do I have?

Re:What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browse

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what other options do I have?

Logs. In other words, don't rely on the visitors to keep your statistics for you.

Apply your stupid laws equally!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If google analytics is banned then most online advertising systems which essentially do the same thing should be banned too.

who doesn't block that, anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any person left using the internet who does NOT block the google, doubleclick, etc trackers?

Re:What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browse

[Anonymous Coward]

Access logs do not give me the information that a piece of JavaScript does such as the amount of time spent on a website, the amount of clicks that went from one page to another, screen size (so I can optimise my website in the future towards the majority of my surfers), flash version, where they came from, have they been here before, page views per person (since even those behind a proxy are now going to be differentiated from).

Access Logs are NOT the end all be all when attempting to monetize a website and or find out what people like and don't like.

Not local

[DrYak]

It just keeps statistics on things obvious to the web server when you connect to it. IP address, location, referring page, browser, etc.

But these statistics aren't run local on the webserver itself. They are transmitted to Google.

It's like knowing that a middle-aged white male in a red sweatshirt came in the door.

No.
It's like *telling Big Brother* that a middle-aged white male in a red sweatshirt came in the door of your house.
And asking Big Brother to do some statistics about who comes to your house for you.
Sure from the website's owner point of view, the result is the same : he/she got on who visits the site.
BUT from the *user* point of view it is different : The user accepted the fact that, by entering your house, you'll know the users' age/sex/clothes colour. BUT the user never accepted in the first place that you also send these informations to big brother.

The EU regulate clearly what you can transmit to 3rd party.
Here the problem is not that website are doing *stastistics* (they can the information is trivial).
The problem is that, in order to compute said stats, the websites *forwards* the data to google : a 3rd party which has nothing to do in the first palce.

The solution : Use adblock and/or noscript.

Re:Not local

[introspekt.i]

So then, how can the EU legislate:
A. An American site doing this with euro user data?
B. A site keeping it's logs on its own and then, at a later date, transmitting them to Google?
Who owns the logs?

Re:Not local

[maxwell demon]

So then, how can the EU legislate:
A. An American site doing this with euro user data?

It can't, of course.

B. A site keeping it's logs on its own and then, at a later date, transmitting them to Google?

If the site is in the EU, very simple: Just pass a law.

Who owns the logs?

First of all, simply keeping the log longer than necessary already is illegal in the EU. Second, just because you own something doesn't mean you are free to do anything you want with it. For example, you may own a very fast car, but you'll still get a ticket for speeding.

Re:Not local

[Lemmy Caution]

This will, of course, lead to an uptick in US-based webhosting for German businesses. Great news, really. Unless Germany wants to create its own Great Firewall.

Re:Not local

[maxwell demon]

If it's a German business, it's bound by German law. Having the webhosting in the U.S. won't help in that case.

Re:Not local

[KlaasVaak]

Not only will it not help it would put them in way bigger trouble. EU directive ..? says that even though companies are allowed to let 3rd parties handle their customer data it's is not allowed for that data to leave the EU economic region(EU+ Norway, Switzerland etc) Google Analitics might be a little illegal, hosting all your stuff in a non-European country is definitely very illegal.

Re:Not local

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't care if Google only knew about the middle-aged white male. But actually, it is quite worse.

You tell Big Brother to record that the same middle-aged white male in a red sweatshirt that just came out of the store is now reading and sending email on a GMail account that is registered to a certain John Smith from Chicago, who likes reading RSS and Atom feeds about nerdy news that matter as well as naughty news from the Online Sex Toy store he regularly order from (that uses Google Analytics) and who also has an AdSense account registered with his financial data for getting paid.

Re:Not local

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like *telling Big Brother* that a middle-aged white male in a red sweatshirt came in the door of your house.

No, it's like telling a guy at a marketing company that a middle-aged white male in a red sweatshirt came in the door of your business.
A marketing company that is paying you or has some type of agreement with you to supply such information.

BUT from the *user* point of view it is different : The user accepted the fact that, by entering your house, you'll know the users' age/sex/clothes colour. BUT the user never accepted in the first place that you also send these informations to big brother.

No, the user is well aware that when you enter a brick-and-mortar store, some things are going to be noticed, possibly acted on, and in many cases communicated. For example the manager (or a software program) is going to keep track of how busy it is vs. how many staff are on shift, what items are being looked at (even if not purchased), spots in the store that are congested, etc. If they really want they can track all kinds of data about you legally. Now it does make sense that if they GIVE the store some type of private information that it is held in confidence, but to try and restrict information that comes only from outside observation is plain stupidity.

The solution : Use adblock and/or noscript.

That's the easy, cheap way that a free society would address the problem. Or you could create layers of government oversight that is expensive and ineffective.

Re:Not local

[JackieBrown]

So no EU country outsources their customer service to India or elsewhere?

Re:Not local

[Knuckles]

Given that Indians rarely speak French, German, Swedish, Spanish, Finnish, and so on, the answer is that no, usually they don't.

Re:Not local

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like *telling Big Brother* that a middle-aged white male in a red sweatshirt came in the door of your house. And asking Big Brother to do some statistics about who comes to your house for you. Sure from the website's owner point of view, the result is the same : he/she got on who visits the site. BUT from the *user* point of view it is different : The user accepted the fact that, by entering your house, you'll know the users' age/sex/clothes colour. BUT the user never accepted in the first place that you also send these informations to big brother.

What really scares the shit out of me: all your neighbors also tell Big Brother what the middle-aged white male in a red sweatshirt was up to. For every house owner, he was just one guy between hundreds or thousands. But Big Brother has the whole picture, he does not only see what the guy did in each of the houses, he also sees the path he took between the houses. From that information alone, He can see correlations that reveal (or even worse: falsely imply) all kind of information about that single visitor.

Re:Not local

[palegray.net]

You absolutely WRONG. I suppose you haven't heard of the Safe Habor program. Please educate yourself before posting any additional comments on this matter.

Re:Not local

[bickerdyke]

So then, how can the EU legislate:
A. An American site doing this with euro user data?

They can't.
  But they can legislate EU sites trying to circumvent EU data protection laws by forwarding tha data to countries with lower data protection standards.

You see, no legislation of US sites.

B. A site keeping it's logs on its own and then, at a later date, transmitting them to Google?
Who owns the logs?

It's not about who owns the logs, but who owns the data inside them?
Personal data in the logs is still owened by the person that is identified by the data. Like.. if a take a photo of your face, i might own the picture, but I won't own your face.

Re:Not local

[bickerdyke]

It's like *telling Big Brother* that a middle-aged white male in a red sweatshirt came in the door of your house.

No, it's like telling a guy at a marketing company that a middle-aged white male in a red sweatshirt came in the door of your business.
A marketing company that is paying you or has some type of agreement with you to supply such information.

No. Google tracking cookies are unique to a single browser profile. Thats usually even a single user account.

So it's like letting "big brother" now, that the SAME person that used his credit card, issued to "Henry Johnson, Whatever Rd 34 (full adress)" at Walmart 2 hours ago, and who watched "Nuns with leather & whips" porn site 2 days ago, just came in the door of your house. Oh and yes, he's wearing a red sweatshirt.

Re:Not local

[Jesus_666]

Or people will just use a self-hosted analytics package. I doubt that Google is the only company that ever thought of presenting usage data in a convenient manner.

Re:Not local

[js_sebastian]

So then, how can the EU legislate: A. An American site doing this with euro user data?

I expect this would be outside the jurisdiction of EU member states.

B. A site keeping it's logs on its own and then, at a later date, transmitting them to Google? Who owns the logs?

Would make no difference. According to the privacy protection laws we have in europe, you cannot "own" anybody's private data, and are not allowed to do practically anything with it unless the person signs a form for you, and certainly not to send it to third parties, abroad or otherwise. So if your logs include private identifying data, you most certainly cannot ship them to google or anyone.

Re:Not local

[MrMarket]

Here the problem is not that website are doing *stastistics* (they can the information is trivial). The problem is that, in order to compute said stats, the websites *forwards* the data to google : a 3rd party which has nothing to do in the first palce.

The solution : Use adblock and/or noscript.

The problem (based on your description above) is that Gemany is outlawing SaaS. There is no way a small time web site owner could roll his own and host an analytics platform as useful as Google Analytics. Website owners will be hurt by this. Too bad Germany does not regulate what Google does with the information instead of blocking a useful tool for web site owners. It must be a b!tch to start a business in Germany.

Re:Not local

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad Germany does not regulate what Google does with the information instead of blocking a useful tool for web site owners.

You are jumping quite a bit to conclusions here. The article only states that the "Datenschutzbeauftragte" (which are officials responsible to check that the state AND private companies comply with privacy laws) are debating whether Google Analytics violates the privacy and data protection laws or not.

So:

1. The state does regulate. The question is just whether Google complies or not.
2. Nothing is decided yet.
3. If Google is found not to comply (making Google Analytics in its current form illegal to use in Germany) it is of course an option for Google to change their service to make it comply

Re:Not local

[St.Creed]

The EU Directive (95/46/EG) is a little bit more relaxed than the parent made it out to be: you can't export personal data to countries that have less strict privacy laws than the EU. So if India has equally strict privacy laws, you could export the data there. But you can't export to the USA since the privacy laws are so bad. The onliest exception is when countries have ratified EU Treaty nr. 108, which deals with this subject. Even then, that is not enough if the country in question only has the laws on paper but does not enforce them.

However, the directive allows for this fact and gives another option for compliance, which is to have all parties involved sign binding contracts that basically put the same obligations as would be required of the EU company, on the shoulders of the other company. It's very much like the US export regulations: you can't export to people unless they agree to the same restrictions.

Apart from that, I don't know too many companies outsourcing customer service to India. Near-shoring to a country like Hungary is in most cases more effective (its in the EU so no hassle with laws or currency), you can be there in a few hours and it's nearly just as cheap.

Re:Not local

[KDR_11k]

No, it's like telling a guy at a marketing company that a middle-aged white male in a red sweatshirt came in the door of your business.
A marketing company that is paying you or has some type of agreement with you to supply such information.

But since you didn't have an agreement with the person you're watching that his data may be shared with third parties that's still against the law.

No, the user is well aware that when you enter a brick-and-mortar store, some things are going to be noticed, possibly acted on, and in many cases communicated. For example the manager (or a software program) is going to keep track of how busy it is vs. how many staff are on shift, what items are being looked at (even if not purchased), spots in the store that are congested, etc. If they really want they can track all kinds of data about you legally. Now it does make sense that if they GIVE the store some type of private information that it is held in confidence, but to try and restrict information that comes only from outside observation is plain stupidity.

The store people can use their eyes to track you and their mind to remember you. Unless they have a photographic memory they usually won't be able to tell much about you later. Using videotapes to record you and then sending those tapes to someone else is illegal.

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate that google analytics thing. For a lot of sites, the page won't display anything until it's done loading. I guess it gets a lot of traffic, because it's frequently unresponsive. So much so that I have to map it to 127.0.0.1 to get a lot of websites to load at reasonable speed (i.e. less than 2 minutes)

Way to go Germany.

Connecting the dots -- Murdoch behind this?

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Open Source alternative" is Piwik
Piwik is sponsored by OpenX
OpenX is an ad serving company that competes with Adsense
Jon Miller is on the board of OpenX
Jon Miller is CEO of Digital Media at News Corp.

I didn't mean to create a conspiracy out of this, but it's amusing to see how any move against Google is now a move in favor of Rupert Murdoch.

Re:What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browse

[Anonymous Coward]

And I want a clear view into the bathroom of that hot chick across the street.

Have you considered that your need for clean statistics does not outweight the peoples right for privacy?

Imagine someone steals your car because he couldn't get to work otherwise. Should it be your problem that he can't get to work?
Should it be my problem that you can't improve your website? When you invade my privacy as means to do so it is my problem.

At least the EU is on your side.

[Anonymous Coward]

Moves like this make it clear that there are very fundamental differences between the governments in Europe and the USA.

In the USA, the government exists to help corporations make money.

In Europe, governments exist to help people live enjoyable lives.

if they do that to google they

[jobst]

have to do this to a lot of other "keeping of data" if they want to "be fair", including advertising (e.g. tracking), logging (each webserver keeps logs of who has accessed what), cookies, preferences, facebook, linkedin, online games, google/yahoo/bing keeping websites ... are they for real?

Re:if they do that to google they

[maxwell demon]

Keeping server logs for an extended times is illegal. If they made serving ads from third-party servers illegal, I wouldn't object :-)
Cookies: It depends on what they are used for. Cookies which only go to the primary site and are not set without the user's consent are clearly OK. Tracking cookies aren't.
Preferences are usually not stored without the user explicitly requesting it. Therefore: Clearly OK.
Facebook: If I don't explicitly go to facebook, do they get any data on me?
linkedin: I don't know that.
Online games: It's certainly your own decision to play them. You don't play them without noticing.
google/yahoo/bing keeping websites: What do you mean with "keeping websites"?

Re:if they do that to google they

[jobst]

how long is "extended times" ;-)

as for stopping ads ... you might as well stop the internet ... this drives the place.

as for "keeping websites" i wasn't thinking clearly ... have you ever noticed how muck email is kept on google? ... how much detail shows up for a person? ...

If they do this how do "they" know where to draw the line where things are legal and illegal???

Re:if they do that to google they

[maxwell demon]

as for stopping ads ... you might as well stop the internet ... this drives the place.

Well, they could do the equivalent to what print media and TV do: Put the ads on the server which also serves the content. Yes, that means the advertisers won't see who sees their ad, and they cannot make targeted ads beyond the content of the web sites, but then, they can't do that on print media or TV either, and it seems to work quite fine there. As an added bonus to the advertiser, you couldn't block their ads automatically, because they would come from the same source as the real content.

Re:What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browse

[Gadget_Guy]

Another reason to avoid Internet Explorer until it gets a no script equivalent (which it never will)

Way back in the IE4 days, I used a mixture of the zone system (Trusted Sites for those few where I wanted Javascript) and the hosts file. These days, if you use multiple browsers then privoxy is the better solution because the one configuration will work in all the browsers (yes, including Internet Explorer).

Drupal has a Piwik module

[laddiebuck]

Just checked and Drupal has a reasonably good Piwik module. Good news for me! I'll be switching a site I admin (120k users) to it in the next week. I already disallow google analytics because I've never enabled it via NoScript, but my visitors don't. When I got started, there wasn't really a good alternative to GA for what we were doing short of rolling our own.

Re:Drupal has a Piwik module

[raju1kabir]

Don't get too excited until you've actually used it. I tried and gave up on Piwik in July; at that point anyway it was definitely not ready for prime time.

Re:What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browse

[Kalriath]

Another reason to avoid Internet Explorer until it gets a no script equivalent (which it never will).

http://www.ie7pro.com/

So block it

[Exp315]

I use Ghostery (the Firefox add-on) that shows you what trackers are loading with the page and lets you block them individually. There are plenty of other options if you want to block tracking cookies.

Take a look at your cookies

[sinrakin]

Before getting too paranoid about google analytics, take a look at the actual cookies it stores. E.G. in Firefox "Tools", "Options", "Show Cookies", search for "__utmz". Whoa, there are a few hundred. Check out the one from Slashdot - in my case: "9273847.1252068577.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)". "9273847" means "slashdot.org". "1252068577" means me, when I go to Slashdot. The rest of the stuff has to do with how I found the site. But now look at __utmz for say, pennyarcade.com: "84531096.1252070740.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)". It's a different web site ID, but it's also a different user ID. There's no correlation between the person who goes to slashdot, and the person who goes to pennyarcade. Google can't tell that they're both me. My ID is different on every single web site that uses Google analytics. The only purpose of the ID is so that, for a single given website, they can tell the difference between one person visiting it a hundred times, or a hundred people each visiting it one time. There's no other personally identifiable information tied to that number. Your analytics cookies on all those sites are not correlated with each other; they're not tracking everything you do.

Re:Take a look at your cookies

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, google does know what IP address you visited each site from, and they can check to see how many different userids have visited each site from each ip address each day.

If you really wanna screw with them clear your browser cookies multiple times a day.

Re:Take a look at your cookies

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know?

/etc/host and you

[Anonymous Coward]

fyi, if you don't want to be counted by google analytics add a record to your /etc/host or C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts file that points the google analytics URL to local host or some other invalid address.

Peace.

Re:What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browse

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're one of those douchebags!

Hypertext has no reason to care about my screen size. You have no right to know what it is, and quit trying to optimize for it.
Quit making "websites" that need Flash!

All the other things are in your logs already, aren't they? Except that bit about trying to differentiate people who demonstrate
their desire for privacy by using proxies.

I'll tell you what people don't like: "attempting to monetize a website".

google should comply

[leehwtsohg]

Strange, but in this case I think that the german law is in the right and google should change (and many other sites, such as adsense should too)

Web sites today collect much too much data on users. This data could easily fall into the wrong hands, and you have no control over who collects what, and who stores what. And, for every trick you find for web sites not to track you, new tricks are invented to continue to do so. Once it was enough to turn off cookies. Today you also need noscript, and betterPrivacy. And you lose much of the functions of sites when you enable these addons. If it was the law that you can't collect potentially private data, sites would find ways to have full functionality without tracking the users.

Another point is opt out vs. opt in. It is true that users can "opt out" by doing the above mentioned steps, but it is quite hard to keep yourself informed about all the steps necessary, and the average grandmother will not take them. This tracking should be opt out so that you don't need to be an expert to not be tracked.

A last point is the collection of really private data - cross referencing your browsing habits with your e-mail, and other interactions. Google currently says that they are not doing it, but allow themselves to do it. I think again google should comply and say what type of cross-referencing they will never do.

What are examples where tracking could be harmful? Reading up on certain medical problems on the web, looking for a new job when you don't want your employer to know about it. Obtaining tools to break DRM, or just reading up on how to do that. Expressing your political views on a website (think of how that was misused in nazi germany, the gdr, or during the McCarthy era). How dangerous was it for iranians to browse the web recently? It could have been much worse.

come on Google, do no evil!

Oh noes! They stored four cookies!

[zapakh]

And they are storing that cookie everywhere on the internet now a days. Google can build a pretty accurate profile about you (unless you've blocked it, but 'casual' people usually don't)

Google Analytics uses cookies called __utma, __utmb, __utmc, and __utmz (they have different expiry characteristics so GA can distinguish a "visit" from a "visitor"). Hands-on experiment: If you're not one of the people who blocks GA, open up your cookie jar right now and look for "utma". I expected to find a lot in mine, and I'm still surprised by how many are in there.

Have you actually used the Analytics service? It shows very detailed information about visitors, where they are coming from and what they do on the website.

It's pretty darn slick. GA got to be popular on its merits. But now that it's everywhere I worry about the aggregative power available to Google (not the individual GA users). Now that NoScript is gaining ground I occasionally worry that I ought to be doing my tracking locally because I won't know how many people have opted out of GA by declining its cookies.

Minimize visible costs, and be damned

[AliasMarlowe]

Given that Indians rarely speak French, German, Swedish, Spanish, Finnish, and so on, the answer is that no, usually they don't.

Indians don't usually speak Finnish, and Finns don't usually speak Hindi or Bengali or Gujarati etc. But that does not stop companies in Finland outsourcing tech support to India. That's the case where I work, for instance. The language used for support is English, sort-of, on both sides. The result is that there are not too many requests for tech support, reducing visible tech support costs quite dramatically. Invisible costs are another matter.

Re:What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browse

[Anonymous Coward]

Monetizing a website is ok. A website monetizing me is not.

Re:What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browse

[Jesus_666]

By the way, you do know that Google Analytics heavily relies on session cookies?

Google translation

[Rogue Pat]

Am I the only one who thinks it's funny that they point to a Google translation of a story how Google analytics may be illegal in Germany? ;-)

That is nothing

[aepervius]

At least those guy are policemen and/or related to law enforcement/anti terrorism. Whereas for my short stint in the US everybody and their grandma had a weapon. Whether you find the first sobering , or me the second frightening is a question of the culture where youa re born. And FYI, in the french airport they also had french guys with automatic weapons. So it isn't a German things.

Why not use access logs alone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not use access logs alone? If you really ARE using it "to focus on actual improvements to the website", why can't you use what was asked of on your site? Why must you know that someone did something on YOUR site AND they did something else on ANOTHER site? The existence of other websites doesn't affect the *usability* of yours.

Re:What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browse

[Taliesan999]

Seems like a blatant troll, but anyway, I'll bite.

No the website has no RIGHT to know about screen size and so on, but that kind of information IS useful to a designer/programmer. If there's no room for a sidebar on 60%+ of my user's screens, then what's the point in having a sidebar. Conversely if 60% of my visitors browse with the browser maximised on a widescreen monitor, then maybe I should give them something to do with all that extra space.

As for proxies... maybe you haven't worked in the real world, but most businesses operate an Internet proxy and many ISP's route their users through one as well.

As for "what people don't like: "attempting to monetize a website""... servers, bandwidth and time aren't free... well not in the real world I inhabit anyway.

Enjoy your free, hobbyist Internet... I'm sure you feel dirty every time you shop online, post on Slashdot, or read anything that isn't someone's shitty two penny blog.

The laugh here about "monetizing" is it's very often congruent with giving your users more of they want and better targeting ads, so your users spend more time on your site and click on a larger number of ads they find interesting.

Re:What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browse

[yuhong]

Way back in the IE4 days, I used a mixture of the zone system (Trusted Sites for those few where I wanted Javascript)

It of course still exists in IE 8, though often overlooked, and MS even made that the default in server versions of Windows starting with Server 2003. It was called something like the IE Enhanced Security Configuration.

Local install is ok

[DrYak]

The problem (based on your description above) is that Gemany is outlawing SaaS. There is no way a small time web site owner could roll his own and host an analytics platform as useful as Google Analytics.

Absolutely nothing in the EU law forbids a website owner to download and locally install a ready-to-use opensource package (Say, some PHP kit).

As long as said package provably doesn't ring home and send data to external some 3rd party without visitors' prior consent - and opensource nature should make proving this rather easy.

Re:Local install is ok

[MrMarket]

Does anyone have examples of "ready-to-use opensource packages" as easy to use and administer as GA or Google Optimizer?

Re:What's one of the #1 blocked items in my browse

[Maxo-Texas]

Looks useful. Someone mod this up. B)

Open Source alternative

[ZerdZerd]

Does anyone know about an open source alternative to Google analytics? Something that gives a more information than just webalizer/awstats etc.