6 ms·

„ In comparison, in the context of the European GDPR, the Article 29 Working Party[6] considered hashing to be a technique for pseudonymization that “reduces th

„ In comparison, in the context of the European GDPR, the Article 29 Working Party[6] considered hashing to be a technique for pseudonymization that “reduces the linkability of a dataset with the original identity of a data subject” and thus “is a useful security measure,” but is “not a method of anonymisation.”[7] In other words, from the perspective of the Article 29 Working Party, while hashing might be a useful security technique, it is not sufficient to convert personal data into deidentified data.“ https://www.gtlaw-dataprivacydish.com/2021/03/what-is-hashing-and-does-it-help-avoid-the-obligations-imposed-by-the-new-privacy-regulations/#:~:text=In%20comparison%2C%20in%20the%20context,anonymisation.%E2%80%9D%5B7%5D%20In https://www.gtlaw-dataprivacydish.com/2021/03/what-is-hashin...

number6 2y ago
I am a DPO. The claims Plausible makes won't hold up to scrutiny. It's a simple trick: declaring all data collected to technical data, when in fact it is linkable to a data subject. Thus collection of the data requires consent, because a subject is identified at least for the session. If you can identify unique visitors you are clearly identifying individuals.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  hash(daily_salt + website_domain + ip_address + user_agent) That's what they do. Within 24 hours the daily salt is gone, and the data is anonymous. https://plausible.io/data-policy#how-we-count-unique-users-without-cookies https://plausible.io/data-policy#how-we-count-unique-users-w...
  - number6 2y ago
    Good approach. IP Addresses are personal data. So the data and the hash is subject to GDPR. You still need consent to collect it - well or some other kind of legal shenanigans. The intent is to track a person, it is not technically necessary. You might have a legitimate interest - but in the end you still have to consider the GDPR to use this tool. https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers/data-protection/data-protection-gdpr/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...
    - aspect0545 2y ago
      What’s your thought on the approach adjust.com takes? They say you can claim legitimate interest
    - omnimus 2y ago
      Turns out that many officials believe this is fine. Companies using Plausible, Matomo and similar services have been under scrutiny. IP adress is required for site to function - your server cant not collect it. Plausible also only processes it for uniqueness and doesnt save it as is. Interestingly most webservers/firewalls will have to keep track of ip adresses so they will be saved in acess logs and caches. Making them more problematic than Plausible. Yet its most likely fine because the intent is not to track individual users but to improve service/keep it runing. Plausible intent is also not track individual users but collect visitor counts which is something used for improving service too. I think you might be prematurely spreading fear.
      - JimDabell 2y ago
        > Turns out that many officials believe this is fine. Who has gone on record with this, and in which jurisdictions?
        omnimus 2y ago
        I have experience from state funded projects from central european countries. Afaik what they battle/hate most is what goes against the spirit of the law. So mainly popups that are hyperdesigned to be confusing so people are forced or tricked or annoyed thus accepting everything. Another thing they battle is how long data is saved and where the data is shared. If you self host service like plausible or matomo that do everything thats possible to be compliant then it's fine. I think there is marketing tactic ad/analytics companies and marketers use against services like Plausible. They say these services also require cookie popup and wont give you as much detailed info so why would you use them. Most websites would be fine with limited data Plausible provides but it breaks ad/analytics industry business plan.
  - makach 2y ago
    problem is that this is what they say they do, there are too many examples of companies being noncompliant to their own policies and regulations. they should explain the abovementioned algorithm in their data privacy declaration published online. also even a hash can be considered as a private and personal data unless it has been protected sufficiently. thus need to inform your users anyway.
- newusertoday 2y ago
  what are your thought on aggregated data? you can still identify unique visitors but its aggregated data so you can't link it back to the individual. I have doubts that just identifying unique visitors would also identify individuals. Their current approach of creating random id which is unique for 24 hours should not violate GDPR? or it would?
  - number6 2y ago
    You begin at a point where you have data to aggregate. This data is linked to individuals. Anonymisation of data is data processing and some argue, that it is subject to a privacy impact assessment. Arguing that if done poorly it has great negative consequences for the individual if they can be deanonymized. The duration itself does not change the outcome. Thus said the approach Plausible takes is much better than any cookie used.
    - anonzzzies 2y ago
      I think you can argue if this holds up: you cannot retrieve the ip from the hash (and residential IPs are usually dynamic). The short lifetime together with never storing the hash makes it so you cannot de-anonymise the user. No one will get fined for not asking consent for this. Our DPO just said ‘don’t be silly’ when I asked him. But we will see if it gets tested (my bet: it won’t).
      - number6 2y ago
        You would still have to produce the paperwork for this. Most websites don't get fined using GA. Plausible is a huge step in the right direction, but their claims are very strong and not backed up by the GDPR if you take a closer look. Regarding fines: most offices will give you a warning instead of a fine, you adjust your cookie banner and you are good to go
        anonzzzies 2y ago
        We don't (and won't) have a consent banner at all; if Plausible would incur a warning, we'll just remove it completely instead.
- makach 2y ago
  Indeed you are correct. Plausible it is not. They should put their cookie consent back up, and need to inform their users how they are indeed processing the data collected from personal users.

number6 2y ago

I am a DPO. The claims Plausible makes won't hold up to scrutiny. It's a simple trick: declaring all data collected to technical data, when in fact it is linkable to a data subject. Thus collection of the data requires consent, because a subject is identified at least for the session. If you can identify unique visitors you are clearly identifying individuals.

Symbiote 2y ago
hash(daily_salt + website_domain + ip_address + user_agent) That's what they do. Within 24 hours the daily salt is gone, and the data is anonymous. https://plausible.io/data-policy#how-we-count-unique-users-without-cookies https://plausible.io/data-policy#how-we-count-unique-users-w...
- number6 2y ago
  Good approach. IP Addresses are personal data. So the data and the hash is subject to GDPR. You still need consent to collect it - well or some other kind of legal shenanigans. The intent is to track a person, it is not technically necessary. You might have a legitimate interest - but in the end you still have to consider the GDPR to use this tool. https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers/data-protection/data-protection-gdpr/index_en.htm https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...
  - aspect0545 2y ago
    What’s your thought on the approach adjust.com takes? They say you can claim legitimate interest
  - omnimus 2y ago
    Turns out that many officials believe this is fine. Companies using Plausible, Matomo and similar services have been under scrutiny. IP adress is required for site to function - your server cant not collect it. Plausible also only processes it for uniqueness and doesnt save it as is. Interestingly most webservers/firewalls will have to keep track of ip adresses so they will be saved in acess logs and caches. Making them more problematic than Plausible. Yet its most likely fine because the intent is not to track individual users but to improve service/keep it runing. Plausible intent is also not track individual users but collect visitor counts which is something used for improving service too. I think you might be prematurely spreading fear.
    - JimDabell 2y ago
      > Turns out that many officials believe this is fine. Who has gone on record with this, and in which jurisdictions?
      - omnimus 2y ago
        I have experience from state funded projects from central european countries. Afaik what they battle/hate most is what goes against the spirit of the law. So mainly popups that are hyperdesigned to be confusing so people are forced or tricked or annoyed thus accepting everything. Another thing they battle is how long data is saved and where the data is shared. If you self host service like plausible or matomo that do everything thats possible to be compliant then it's fine. I think there is marketing tactic ad/analytics companies and marketers use against services like Plausible. They say these services also require cookie popup and wont give you as much detailed info so why would you use them. Most websites would be fine with limited data Plausible provides but it breaks ad/analytics industry business plan.
- makach 2y ago
  problem is that this is what they say they do, there are too many examples of companies being noncompliant to their own policies and regulations. they should explain the abovementioned algorithm in their data privacy declaration published online. also even a hash can be considered as a private and personal data unless it has been protected sufficiently. thus need to inform your users anyway.
newusertoday 2y ago
what are your thought on aggregated data? you can still identify unique visitors but its aggregated data so you can't link it back to the individual. I have doubts that just identifying unique visitors would also identify individuals. Their current approach of creating random id which is unique for 24 hours should not violate GDPR? or it would?
- number6 2y ago
  You begin at a point where you have data to aggregate. This data is linked to individuals. Anonymisation of data is data processing and some argue, that it is subject to a privacy impact assessment. Arguing that if done poorly it has great negative consequences for the individual if they can be deanonymized. The duration itself does not change the outcome. Thus said the approach Plausible takes is much better than any cookie used.
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    I think you can argue if this holds up: you cannot retrieve the ip from the hash (and residential IPs are usually dynamic). The short lifetime together with never storing the hash makes it so you cannot de-anonymise the user. No one will get fined for not asking consent for this. Our DPO just said ‘don’t be silly’ when I asked him. But we will see if it gets tested (my bet: it won’t).
    - number6 2y ago
      You would still have to produce the paperwork for this. Most websites don't get fined using GA. Plausible is a huge step in the right direction, but their claims are very strong and not backed up by the GDPR if you take a closer look. Regarding fines: most offices will give you a warning instead of a fine, you adjust your cookie banner and you are good to go
      - anonzzzies 2y ago
        We don't (and won't) have a consent banner at all; if Plausible would incur a warning, we'll just remove it completely instead.
makach 2y ago
Indeed you are correct. Plausible it is not. They should put their cookie consent back up, and need to inform their users how they are indeed processing the data collected from personal users.