Boy, nobody cares about this topic: 38 comments on the one above, none here. Okay.

Is there a technical reason the Extreme Tracker can't be on your archive pages? Mine works OK there (Blogger, not Movable Type). Or is it a choice you've made to separate the front page traffic from the archive traffic? That's not clear from your post.

*shrug* I care about privacy. A lot. I don't care if someone knows that I have viewed your pages though. Similarly, I wouldn't care that other people can see my face as I walk into a shop.

If you were collecting the information and cross referencing it with other data to generate personalised profiles, then I would be upset.

Some things I do are public, and I leave certain footprints. If I don't want to leave footprints in a particular case, I can make that happen. However, if you do anything that massages public information into private information, then I become upset.

Some people may argue that if the more private information can be synthesised from the public, then it is public. However, I hold that the synthesised information is invariably used to lessen the quality of my life. Telemarketers, junk mail, spam, imprisonment by sinister government agencies all come to mind. If I wanted something from you enough to give up the information I would have just given it to you.

This brings to mind the question of what should be limited: synthesis/theft of private data, or the use of that data? Assuming someone cared enough to pass legislation should they make it illegal to collect the data, or just illegal to use it? The second would make the first not economically feasible. The first would probably be easier, but may be superficial.

On the other hand, it is the harrassment that comes from "privacy leakage" that really annoys me, and it is easy to prove that someone has information they shouldn't if the only way they can make money is to use it. ie. Feel free to own a gun, but if you shoot me, I'll point at the bullet hole and have you up on criminal charges. The problem with private information is that it exists on a continuum, and nobody will agree on where the crucial dividing line is. However, if I can point at something you did that affected me directly, and that you couldn't do without information about me, I would hold that you have invaded my privacy.

Hmm. It seems I have argued myself into a litmus test. If the information someone collects affects me directly, then the person using that information is in the wrong, and "privacy invasion" has occurred. Similarly, if the information was essentially provided by a third party, that party should be held accountable.

Is there something else that could be done that would be better than what I have discussed? I don't know, but I would appreciate any suggestions.

I think perhaps people know deep in their hearts that what they want is purely irrelevant. As long as politicians accept money from corporations, what people want with respect to privacy is irrelevant.

The above is actually a paraphrase of my maxim "As long as politicians accept money from corporations, everything will be opt-out rather than opt-in".

Extreme Tracker and SiteMeter works in the same way, and they should be able to count users who have JavaScript disabled, (both use the noscript-tag), but you won't see the URL they came from.

I'm not sure I see a privacy problem with public counters, at least not larger than usual. Unless you make a effort to conceal your activity, (try anonymizer.com and start encrypting your mail), anonymity on the internet is an illusion. Besides, Extreme Tracker only shows the IP's and operating system of the last 20 visitors - who's going to abuse that? Your boss already knows where you surf, and crackers don't need to hang around at public counters to find victims.

it's the new instapundit tagline: 'come for the posts, stay for the weird search referers!' i'd like to know who was searching for emotion cards, whatever those are.