[TheLogothete]

I don't see how GA can be classified as malware according to this.

[falcolas]

Automatically opting a user into data collection, without explicitly asking the user, is a dark pattern.

Requiring the user to set an environment variable to opt out is smarmy.

[mortenlarsen]

Phones home...

[TheLogothete]

It does not compromise the user's privacy in any way. GA prohibits PII. Also, the webmaster has to opt-in to share the data with Google in the first place.

[mortenlarsen]

Some people disagree. If they didn't, why is this on HN with a lot of comments from people who a unhappy with this change?

If software compromises my privacy, I feel that I have been betrayed and lost something that I can not take back.

If you don't get to automatically participate in a "anonymous" usage survey, have you lost something you can not undo?

That in my opinion, is why software should always err on the side of privacy.

[TheLogothete]

People just LOOVE to be outraged. For example in this thread people rage about google getting hands on their data. When I point out that the webmaster has to explicitly chose to share the data with google, I get downvoted. When I say that GA prohibits the use of PII, I get downvoted. It doesn't matter that I'm right. People WANT to be outraged. Reason, no reason, doesn't matter.

[ThisIs_MyName]

Chill, dude. Most of us dislike GA and its monopoly on web/mobile tracking. Why trust GA to respect webmaster options when you don't have to?

...anyway, complaining about getting downvoted is a surefire way to keep getting downvoted :P