|
|
|
|
|
by alkonaut
482 days ago
|
|
> (Pseudo) anonymized attribution is a bit of a solved problem and you can do it with or without cookies. How is it typically done without cookies then? > any probabilistic approach is either relatively inaccurate reduces it's usefulness for this use case, or accurate which raises the same identifiability concerns cookies would introduce How so? Even if it's accurate you wouldn't be storing anything the information (random id or fingerprint) for the individual user, so you would only be able to answer with reasonable certainty whether you saw the user before or not. You can't identify anyone from that (other than identify them as a new vs returning user) so there is no identifiability concern, unless of course one thinks that constitutes a concern in itself which I don't think the GDPR does. |
|
And yes what you said is exactly right; you're allowed to fingerprint a unique user and track data with that fingerprint as the sole unique identifier without any PII legislation (GDPR, CCPA, etc.) compliance issues. You just cannot store any information that allows linking PII data to that fingerprint in either direction. In other words, attribution to a random UUID that just happens to represent an anonymous user is not an issue.
Circling back to the original comment; there is no (good) argument against cookies if you're basically doing exactly what cookies are doing. Umami using it as a USP is, at best, a little odd.