For what it’s worth, for extremely sensitive projects like GOV.UK Verify other options are fine; Verify uses a local Piwik instance.
You’re also welcome to block that specific JS or just turn off JS completely on GOV.UK properties - everything has to work without JS to go live on GOV.UK.[2]
[1] https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2763052?hl=en
[2] https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/technology/using-progressi...
Does it prevent US government from getting this data with a court order?
It's not about you trusting somebody to handle the data. It's just that the data should not exist at all outside of you and the gov.
As soon as the data exists somewhere else, there is a way to misuse it and a chance it will happen. In todays word, those don't even require a lot of imagination to find because it already happened and is currently happening.
Of course not. Also it does not prevent governments and other organizations from illegally extracting that data from Google, as it happened.
Even if they could, they wouldn't be able to find it.
Furthermore, it is often possible to de-anonymize data especially if you have an extensive knowledge of users and their data such as google. But even then, you can also de-anonymize data
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~shmat/shmat_oak08netflix.pdf
https://www.wired.com/2007/12/why-anonymous-data-sometimes-i...
When a customer of Analytics requests IP address anonymization, Analytics anonymizes the address as soon as technically feasible at the earliest possible stage of the collection network. The IP anonymization feature in Analytics sets the last octet of IPv4 user IP addresses and the last 80 bits of IPv6 addresses to zeros in memory shortly after being sent to the Analytics Collection Network. The full IP address is never written to disk in this case.
I very reluctantly tried to use it as I don't want to give all my data to any of the companies you listed, and yet it failed to identify me using the two companies I was allowed to pick.
I really don't see how it's acceptable to force users to give so much personal data to a handful of randomly selected private companies, on the off-chance that they already have it.
The concerning part was what happened when I tried to cancel the process. The companies told me that they would delete all the data I had submitted to them, but when I tried again a year later, I was invited to resume my application, and all my data was still in their systems!
[edit] Just tried to go through the process again to see if anything has changed. I picked Royal Mail as an identity provider but was unable to finish because I had to upload a scan of a phone contract, which I don't have since I use pay as you go! Bloody waste of time!
And we all know that means it's safe forever, and isn't in any sort of jeopardy the moment it crosses a border, or in fact the moment it escapes to a third party at all.
It's all industry standard so it must be fine!
>> For what it’s worth, for extremely sensitive projects like GOV.UK Verify other options are fine; Verify uses a local Piwik instance.
Then gov.uk should use a local Piwik instance for everything, GDS are clearly not incapable of it.
FYI I can and do block google analytics JS. It shouldn't be there in the first place, I shouldn't have to block it when interacting with my own government.
Impossible over the phone as they wanted to send a paper letter to my address and I was just moving to a new place (and doing some travel before that) so I had no more access to the address HMRC had on file.
I finally gave up and just asked my accountant to do it on my behalf. He somehow managed to sort this out with HMRC.
There is no flow to recover your username and password (or generate new one) with your email address which is maddening.
[1] "HMRC rejects Gov.uk Verify", http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450412927/HMRC-rejects-Go... [2] http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450301278/Revealed-The-ba...
What's the penalty for completely disregarding that?
Is it anywhere near large enough to justify them not disregarding it?
More to the point: Pretty much the only thing a contract can do is impose a monetary penalty. Even if it's quite large, it's still only money, and Google rakes in money by the bushel basket from selling data to advertisers. Therefore, it isn't a very convincing penalty.
Is it in the public view? How many Daily Mail headlines about Google Analytics have you read ever?
This kind of stuff should be opt-in for users, but Google know that hardly anyone would want to be tracked by them if they were given a clear choice.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/27/theresa-may...
Privacy is opt-in, not opt-out.
They hold the coroner's letters to prevent future deaths, but the search is not useful.
It would be good if I could search and return every letter about eg deaths by suicide or railway deaths or etc.
It seems a shame to have all these reports to prevent future death locked away.
https://www.payments.service.gov.uk/
That's the actual service and it includes GA, or at least it did earlier.
I do not feel that reporting every online interaction I have with my government in the UK, back to a huge corporate in the US, is in any way appropriate. But I can't even get anyone to engage on the issue.
When I tried to raise it I got directed to a helpdesk ticket on a site run by an SV helpdesk-as-a-service company.
I appreciate that gov.uk have done some great stuff getting the UK government online, and their designs and Open Source attitude are refreshing, but this is a a serious privacy issue.