Web analytics should at least meet the standards of informed consent December 4, 2020 on Drew DeVault's blog

Research conducted on human beings, at least outside of the domain of technology, has to meet a minimum standard of ethical reasoning called informed consent. Details vary, but the general elements of informed consent are:

  1. Disclosure of the nature and purpose of the research and its implications (risks and benefits) for the participant, and the confidentiality of the collected information.
  2. An adequate understanding of these facts on the part of the participant, requiring an accessible explanation in lay terms and an assessment of understanding.
  3. The participant must exercise voluntary agreement, without coercion or fear of repercussions (e.g. not being allowed to use your website).

So, I pose the following question: if your analytics script wouldn’t pass muster at your university’s ethics board, then what the hell is it doing on your website? Can we not meet this basic minimum standard of ethical decency and respect for our users?

Opt-out is not informed consent. Manually unticking dozens of third-party trackers from a cookie pop-up is not informed consent. “By continuing to use this website, you agree to…” is not informed consent. “Install uBlock Origin” is not informed consent.

I don’t necessarily believe that ethical user tracking is impossible, but I know for damn sure that most of these “pro-privacy” analytics solutions which have been cropping up in the wake of the GDPR don’t qualify, either.

Our industry’s fundamental failure to respect users, deliberately mining their data without consent and without oversight for profit, is the reason why we’re seeing legal crackdowns in the form of the GDPR and similar legislation. Our comeuppance is well-earned, and I hope that the regulators give it teeth in enforcement. The industry response — denial and looking for ways to weasel out of these ethical obligations — is a strategy on borrowed time. The law is not a computer program, and it is not executed by computers: it is executed by human beings who can see through your horseshit. You’re not going to be able to seek out some narrow path you can walk to skirt the regulations and keep spying on people.

You’re going to stop spying on people.

P.S. If you still want the data you might get from analytics without compromising on ethics, here’s an idea: compensate users for their participation in your research. Woah, what a wild idea! That’s not very growth hacker of you, Drew.

⇒ This article is also available on gemini.

Have a comment on one of my posts? Start a discussion in my public inbox by sending an email to ~sircmpwn/public-inbox@lists.sr.ht [mailing list etiquette]

Articles from blogs I read Generated by openring

Command PATH security in Go

Today’s Go security release fixes an issue involving PATH lookups in untrusted directories that can lead to remote execution during the go get command. We expect people to have questions about what exactly this means and whether they might h…

via The Go Programming Language Blog January 19, 2021

Status update, January 2021

Hi all! This month again, my main focus has been wlroots. I’ve focused on the internal renderer refactoring (the so-called “renderer v6"). A lot of the work has now been completed, and all backends now use the new interfaces under-the-hood. With the help …

via emersion January 18, 2021

What's cooking on Sourcehut? January 2021

Another year begins, and hopefully with better prospects for us all. SourceHut has emerged from 2020 relatively unscathed, thankfully, and I hope the same is true of most of our users. A body which, by the way, today numbers 19,647 strong, up 623 from Decemb…

via Blogs on Sourcehut January 15, 2021