
Google Analytics Opt-Out Browser Add-On - dandelion_lover
https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout?hl=en
======
rchmura
That doesn't do what you think it does. It only excludes your data from being
included in Google Analytics reports that website owners "end users" see. All
your data still goes to "the borg" as if nothing has really changed.

You need to block the domain completely using a privacy tool plug-in for your
browser.

~~~
nsgi
Source?

According to Google:

> This add-on instructs the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js,
> and dc.js) running on websites to prohibit their information from being used
> by Google Analytics. Using the Google Analytics opt-out plug-in will not
> prevent site owners from using other tools to measure site analytics.

[https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/181881?hl=en](https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/181881?hl=en)

I've heard that the reason it sets a variable rather than blocking the script
is to avoid breaking websites that do custom tracking.

~~~
rchmura
I'm pointing out that "Google" and "Google Analytics" are separate and that
when your data is collected "Google" gets it, processes it and then pushes the
refined data to "Google Analytics". The raw data is used in the "internal API"
(Which is different than the public APIs that you are familiar with). Both
your source and OPs are referring to "Google Analytics" (which is the public
part that webmasters see).

~~~
hahainternet
This appears to be pure unfounded speculation. Can you provide anything to
back this up in any regard?

~~~
rchmura
It's not speculation. Are you asking for more of a deeper explanation of how
the internal API works, or do you want to see published papers/links about it?
Google doesn't publicly document the "Google Analytics Internal API".

~~~
hahainternet
Please provide some evidence of this claim as it relates to this extension:

> when your data is collected "Google" gets it, processes it and then pushes
> the refined data to "Google Analytics".

~~~
rchmura
You are asking for a publicly available document showing the architecture of
Google + Analytics + Doubleclick + Adwords... I can't get that, but other than
doing experiments; you could do what I did when I first found out which is go
ask someone who works on the internal API. (That's what I did)

------
jelv
Good options for real privacy:

Privacy Badger from EFF The extension is designed to automatically protect
your privacy from third party trackers that load invisibly when you browse the
web. We send the Do Not Track header with each request, and our extension
evaluates the likelihood that you are still being tracked. If the algorithm
deems the likelihood is too high, we automatically block your request from
being sent to the domain. Chrome:
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-
badger/pke...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-
badger/pkehgijcmpdhfbdbbnkijodmdjhbjlgp) Firefox:
[https://addons.mozilla.org/nl/firefox/addon/privacy-
badger-f...](https://addons.mozilla.org/nl/firefox/addon/privacy-badger-
firefox/)

or

Ghostery from Ghostery, Inc Block over 2300 request from Advertising,
Analytics, Beacons, Privacy and Widgets lists. Quick, easy to use and
configure. There business model isn't all that great, it's selling data to
advertisers if you want to optin for that. Chrome:
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ghostery/mlomiejdf...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ghostery/mlomiejdfkolichcflejclcbmpeaniij?hl=en)
Firefox:
[https://addons.mozilla.org/nl/firefox/addon/ghostery/?src=se...](https://addons.mozilla.org/nl/firefox/addon/ghostery/?src=search)

There are others but they all have a downside. AdBlock (Plus) but has terrible
business model which let advertisers buy back adds, uBlock (Origin) super
quick AdBlock fork but with terrible interface and Disconnect which also has a
terrible interface.

~~~
hahainternet
> AdBlock (Plus) but has terrible business model which let advertisers buy
> back adds

How is that terrible? (this is not their business model in reality) Do you not
agree that by using these features you deprive sites of revenue? Adblock
believe that unintrusive ads should be permitted to allow free sites to remain
free.

This is a perfectly reasonable position to take and it is unfair of you to
attack them.

~~~
rchmura
Adblock is unfair because the "unintrusive ads" aren't that - they are just
"companies who have paid more to have their ads shown - ads". I would say
that's both unfair and terrible because a) it disavantages smaller players in
the ad market (decrease in choice is bad). b) Who determines which ads are
"unintrusive"? - that's a qualitative property. But then again it has become a
product that does not do that - it's not actually blocking ads now.

~~~
hahainternet
> a) it disavantages smaller players in the ad market

How?

> b) Who determines which ads are "unintrusive"?

Adblock

~~~
EStudley
Adblock was recently sold to an undisclosed buyer[1]. They told users of the
switch the same day they started the "Acceptable Ads" program. I don't want
someone I don't know controlling which ads bypass my ad blocker..

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/adblock-gets-sold-
acceptable-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/adblock-gets-sold-acceptable-
ads-2015-10?r=UK&IR=T)

~~~
hahainternet
> I don't want someone I don't know controlling which ads bypass my ad
> blocker..

Then I think your only option to remain logically consistent is to not install
any ad blocker.

~~~
jodrellblank
Because what people want from an ad-blocker is an affirmation of their logical
consistency, and not "blocked ads". Uh huh.

------
aroch
The opt-out doesn't really do anything: [http://www.unrest.ca/google-
analytics-opt-out-not-really](http://www.unrest.ca/google-analytics-opt-out-
not-really)

~~~
rchmura
Yes - good resource. All of Google's TOS/Privacy-Polcies are so full of vague
and misleading legal speak (on purpose of course), I'm not surprised that OP
was tricked.

~~~
hahainternet
> All of Google's TOS/Privacy-Polcies are so full of vague and misleading
> legal speak

Please provide 3 misleading examples.

~~~
alain94040
Everything is debatable of course, but pretty much on page 1 of Google's
privacy page, I see:

 _We collect information to provide better services to all of our users – from
figuring out basic stuff like which language you speak, to more complex things
like which ads you’ll find most useful_

I object to "ads you'll find most useful" being ok under the category "provide
better services to our users". If you accept the premise that better ads are
useful, then pretty much everything Google does is for your own good.

~~~
hahainternet
This is not misleading in any way, your only disagreement with it is on
principle.

Even given that, I must say, the idea that better ads are not useful is
probably fallacious

~~~
rchmura
What are better ads? Are they ads that really connect with you? Do they change
your behavior in some significant way? What makes ads better for the consumer?
What makes ads better for the marketer? My answer is that what's good for the
marketer is not good for the consumer. Google is optimizing for the marketer
(getting better ROI). As long as consumers are told the ads are "unintrusive"
they must be good too right? When marketers have a really strong ROI, they can
get their ads out there and influence customer behavior. That type of
influence is not good - and does not make it better for consumers.

~~~
hahainternet
They explicitly state 'more useful'. That is the metric they are using, better
ads are ads which are more useful.

For example. Until a day or two I did not know the 'MX Master' mouse existed.
An advert for this would have been useful.

~~~
rchmura
Useful and obtrusive are not mutually exclusive. Is it useful to have only
large companies with large ad budgets peddle a slight iteration to their
product line as "the next best thing", while smaller companies with a really
great (superior) product don't get the exposure. The smaller company would
have lower margins because they invest much more in superior materials, QA,
R&D, etc. Where the larger company has an advantage because they invest more
of their margin on ads. Note: I have an "MX Performance" and I would not
recommend that line of mice no matter what the ads originally said.

------
Kristine1975
This opt-out works for me (add to hosts file):

    
    
      127.0.0.1 www.google-analytics.com 
      127.0.0.1 google-analytics.com 
      127.0.0.1 ssl.google-analytics.com

~~~
rchmura
What about the doubleclick domains and adwords domains which feed the same
data into the same system too? And what about when they launch a new domain?
(Would be difficult to keep up with those changes)

~~~
ised
Use own root and cache DNS instead of HOSTS. Then use wildcards, e.g.,

    
    
      *.doubleclick.net

~~~
jakeogh
Tool to automate that: [https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsmasq-
blacklist](https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsmasq-blacklist)

~~~
ised
The question is: what is listening on 127.0.0.1?

For example, do you have an httpd listening on 127.0.0.1? Do you bind any
other daemons to 127.0.0.1 or the broadcast address?

If you operate your own root you can reassign the authoritative nameservers
for doubleclick.net to nameservers you control. You may or may not choose to
return "A" records.

~~~
jakeogh
Hopefully nothing is on 127.0.0.1:80/443, that way webkit gets a RST back,
which I assume is faster (and less error prone) than serving a dummy page.
I'll add a note to the README.

Edit: Added a --dest-ip option

~~~
ised
"...serving a dummy page."

It could also be less than a page. It could be a dummy resource. For example,
in the case of an ad server and a smartphone app that has some screen space
reserved for ads. You might want your own resource to appear in that space
instead.

Another example is reverse engineering API's and protocols for popular web
services, social media, storage, etc. In that case you might want a "dummy
server" that serves certain responses.

~~~
jakeogh
Interesting. Does --dest-ip[1] solve this?

[1] [https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsmasq-
blacklist/commit/554e20a3...](https://github.com/jakeogh/dnsmasq-
blacklist/commit/554e20a3f9f4c6402c4e9a6129f36d10e439e678)

------
amelius
Opt out? This should be the default.

In an ideal situation, Google tells the user that in order to provide
optimized recommendation services, the user must enable certain options. These
options could include the reporting of browsing behavior to Google. They could
also include storing X bytes of information on Google servers for at most Y
days, where X and Y can be chosen by the user.

------
JoshMnem
"Don't let the fox guard the henhouse."

(unless the "fox" is Firefox, and even then you should be using 3rd party
privacy extensions like Privacy Badger or Ghostery)

------
Houshalter
What's the advantage of this over blocking tracking stuff with adblock? Or
other extensions like disconnect.me?

~~~
sfilipov
I doubt there is any (for the user). While there are many benefits to keep
using an ad blocker.

------
rchaud
This news concerns me a bit, as a project manager for a SaaS web app that uses
GA to generate user activity reports for data around things like "# of users
who clicked on link X" or "users who completed a survey". I'm not a dev, and
we hire an outside web dev company to build the web app and reporting
dashboard.

Can someone more knowledgeable than me indicate if a user with this add-on
enabled will be throwing up zeros on our analytics when they use the software
as a logged in user? I know Ghostery blocks GA, but it's niche enough that I
don't worry about a critical mass of our target demographic using it. But this
seems like an official Google add-on, which makes it much higher profile to
average users.

~~~
cissou
It makes it so no data generated by a user ever reaches Google Analytics's
server, so: yes, they will be zeroes, except if you use other tools to account
for them.

~~~
blumkvist
This is false. The data goes to google's servers, it is just not reported to
the webmaster.

~~~
cissou
Upon reading the article, you seem to be correct.

------
jmount
"For Internet Explorer, 3rd-party cookies must be enabled." Sounds like it
activates a bunch of other stuff that the kind of person who would want to
"opt out" would never want.

------
mnort9
I find this to be more of a PR stunt that says "Google tries to care about
privacy..."

With every change they make to Google search, they put more value on a site's
user experience. Now they take away data that is used to improve user
experience... smh

If GA users are abiding by their terms and not collecting private info, why is
this necessary? Punish all b/c we don't feel like investigating who is
actually wronfully collecting private info?

~~~
callumlocke
But if it was a PR stunt wouldn't it have more design to it? It looks like
some kind of legal compliance thing, not something they want to get any
attention.

~~~
rchmura
Could be both. I looks like it was just made a long time ago with older design
standards. It is commonly used in discussion & feature comparison to make
people think that they can opt out. Even implying that webmasters have some
control over their data (which they don't have)

------
kissickas
"The requested URL /intl/en/analytics/learn/privacy.html was not found on this
server. That’s all we know."

I still hate this 404 message.

Edit: maybe I didn't make it clear enough that that was what I saw after
clicking on "Learn more about Google Analytics Privacy »".

~~~
MichaelGG
Are you on a non US or non English "IP"? Google does this stupid geoip work
then _404s_ pages for other regions. For instance, their solar rooftop
calculator thing just 404d in IPs they think are in Central America. It's a
dumb and weird way of handling things, though no doubt someone got a raise for
that feature.

~~~
gengkev
Actually, I'm in the US and I also get this 404. It's been a while since this
add-on has been made, so that the link is broken isn't too surprising.

------
ForHackernews
I've had pretty good luck with: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/addon/gdc/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/gdc/)

------
wellsjohnston
This may seem like a silly question, but why would someone want to do that?
Google Analytics is basically anonymous traffic and demographic data for web
site users. Why does anyone care?

~~~
rchmura
Here's a A summary of some of my previous comments on this: The bulk of
information about you isn't associated with your account. (or in some personal
way) Rather, it's stored in other silos associated with a non-account
identifier (consider this a way to make it easy to serve more targeted ads to
people who don't even have a google account). This non-account identified data
can be enriched by account data (when there are co-occurrences of account
activity along with non-account identifiers).

There are great efforts made to track everything we possibly can about
people's behavior on the web. Algorithms connect all the dots and make
information about you (found in Service A, Service B, ...) useful. So useful
that we can determine enough about you to tailor your online experience in
order to influence your decisions when it comes to purchases, brand
recognition, political leaning, etc. This is done even when the influence we
have over you may harm your best interests, for the purpose improving ROI for
advertisers.

So the idea of "anonymous" data really isn't that, and the real issue is how
that data is used against you. This is true both for an end user, as well as a
company using google analytics on their site (losing customers, classifying
their marketing sources for advertisers on doubleclick, etc.)

------
nemoniac
"Don't be evil," Google.

