Audit Logs to be retired

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, 1949Sidewinder said:

This sounds like a really lame excuse to get rid of one of the few features on the site that I find very useful. I like to hide caches out in the back-country that can be extremely difficult to access. Very few have the interest and gumption to actually go find them so it is important (to me) to know if anybody is even looking at the listings. It is interesting to see whom is looking at your listing, but it is important to know if "anybody" is looking. It would be nice to see a more imaginative solution to the problematic nature of the audit log!

 

I'm also curious as to why it's important for you to know if anybody is looking. If those caches are in the back-country and are extremely difficult to access, it's unlikely they'd be causing a saturation problem for anyone else, so does it hurt the game if they just stay out there indefinitely without finders? After all, you'll never have to go out there to replace a full logbook, will you?

 

I currently have five caches that haven't been found this year. Earlier in the year I had a cache that hadn't been found in over two years but then someone took pity on it and paid it a visit. Then in August a group from Newcastle came down specifically to do a bunch of BFJ's lonely caches. I didn't know about it in advance so it was a nice surprise to see those logs. If they'd been PMOs the audit log might have spoiled the surprise. Or maybe not, it depends on how much white noise is in those audits from people like me who just like looking in awe at the cache pages of those extremely-difficult-to-access back-country caches without really expecting to get to most of them.

 

There are other ways to gauge interest in lonely caches. Events are good for that. Local FB groups are good for that. And even if there's no apparent interest, there's always the possibility that someone new will join the game tomorrow (or move here from some distant kingdom) and be all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and eager to get out into the back country and have a go at those extremely difficult to access caches.

[+2Abendsegler]

On 10/25/2019 at 10:15 PM, The A-Team said:

... Thoughts? Concerns? ...

 

Data protection reservations are probably the reason for this measure. In the European Union, for example, such monitoring is not in line with data protection laws.

 

I have lived to see some cases also where innocent cachers were harrassed simply because they viewed a cache listing to often.

 

For example, if I'm bored, I'll call bookmark lists. There I let determine for all caches whether changed coordinates are available. In the background, the listings of all these caches are read. My user is then in the audit logs of all pmo caches. In fact, I was only looking for unresolved mysteries.

It may well be that this happened several times in one day, and for weeks, just according to the task, you know.

In my Portugal list are about 300 caches, in my pyrenees list almost 400, multi caches, mysteries, solved and unsolved ... .

 

Since I have no supernatural telepathic abilities, I can not know what an owner will think. Maybe he just wonders, maybe he's worried about his cache ... even though I'm such a nice guy ... that's not fair.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

If those caches are in the back-country and are extremely difficult to access, it's unlikely they'd be causing a saturation problem for anyone else, so does it hurt the game if they just stay out there indefinitely without finders?

After all, you'll never have to go out there to replace a full logbook, will you?

 

I currently have five caches that haven't been found this year. Earlier in the year I had a cache that hadn't been found in over two years but then someone took pity on it and paid it a visit. Then in August a group from Newcastle came down specifically to do a bunch of BFJ's lonely caches.

I didn't know about it in advance so it was a nice surprise to see those logs. If they'd been PMOs the audit log might have spoiled the surprise.

There are other ways to gauge interest in lonely caches. Events are good for that. Local FB groups are good for that. And even if there's no apparent interest, there's always the possibility that someone new will join the game tomorrow (or move here from some distant kingdom) and be all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and eager to get out into the back country and have a go at those extremely difficult to access caches.

 

That's sorta how we see it as well. 

In a couple states we've walked,  it seems few have interest in leaving parking more than a half-mile anymore.   

One series just came out locally, only a seven mile round-trip, and I'll probably be one of six "regulars" to head to it...

May be just me, but it seems a distant cache in "backcountry", if also a container that's water resistant, wouldn't have many issues other than weather and critters.   I'd think many would be comfortable with that. 

On two 5 terrain caches we still have, one is only 200' from a road yet hasn't had any visitors again this year.

My temp-disables for hunting season outnumbers finders.

 - Another, a lengthy but flat-water paddle-to with awesome fishing opportunities, great views, and bald eagles all over, is at two years unfound. 

 Go figure...     

[+barefootjeff]

On 10/27/2019 at 12:19 AM, coachstahly said:

My only use of the audit log feature was to see if anyone was interested in visiting the cache.  The more recent the visitor (as well as the frequency), the more likely they were coming to seek out the cache.  That way I could go out and check on it if I thought anyone might be heading toward it.  Other than that, I rarely used it.  It's not a huge loss.

 

I generally visit a cache after someone has logged it rather than before. Most of my hides are in places protected from the elements and are unlikely to be disturbed by muggles or animals so the biggest problem I have is finders not putting them back properly, like this one I checked on this morning after a recent group find:

 

 

The little droid was supposed to be tucked away deep inside the honeycombed hole, not dangling upside down in his doorstep for all to see.

 

[+SwineFlew]

About time!!! We got someone here that only place PM caches for that tool. It was really annoying they think you stolen their caches or stalking them.  I am glad GS finally removed it. 

[+SwineFlew]

On 10/25/2019 at 4:08 PM, L0ne.R said:

Nice to see that no one in the forums really cares that the audit log will be gone.

 

The announcement says:

 

"Due to privacy concerns and GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) considerations, we will remove the Audit Log ..."

 

Do you think the "All Geocache Finds" link will be eliminated too someday, because of the GDPR and privacy concerns? 

 

 

 

I think  you should think about API log search tool on GSAK.  Its so powerful that anyone can find any type of logs you made on gc.com.  No privacy whatsoever. 

[+on4bam]

2 minutes ago, SwineFlew said:

I think  you should think about API log search tool on GSAK.  Its so powerful that anyone can find any type of logs you made on gc.com.  No privacy whatsoever. 

Logs are public.

The API returns a user ID=0 for deleted/anonymous accounts.

Try harder

[+SwineFlew]

On 11/1/2019 at 3:04 PM, little-leggs said:

 

I used to love looking to see who had been looking who had looked first , and who'd looked more than once , then I liked to try and guess who would be the FTF

That's creepy.  Glad gs removed it to keep you in the dark. 

[+Goldenwattle]

On 11/4/2019 at 11:03 PM, SwineFlew said:

That's creepy.  Glad gs removed it to keep you in the dark. 

Not creepy at all. Just inquisitive. Besides, most people here don't use real names and many wouldn't know who another cacher actually is......although, there are exceptions. I do think that Golden goes so well with my surname Wattle .

Edited November 17, 2019 by Goldenwattle
Missing word

[+thebruce0]

"That's creepy" on a semi-public view log is the kind of presumptuous, far-reaching, conspiracy theorizing sentiment that led to GDPR in the first place.

(#sorrynotsorry) (but really, it's not creepy at all unless someone uses the tool in a creepy way)

[Blue Square Thing]

2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

"That's creepy" on a semi-public view log is the kind of presumptuous, far-reaching, conspiracy theorizing sentiment that led to GDPR in the first place.

(#sorrynotsorry) (but really, it's not creepy at all unless someone uses the tool in a creepy way)

 

Not really - GDPR is a harmonisation of existing data protection regulations that already existed in all EU states, that's all. Because it now has the entire block behind it it's no longer possible for individual companies to simply ignore the laws of one country. Stuff's been modernised a little as well - the UK 1998 act, for example, was in place in the infancy of web companies and before anyone realised how large companies could manipulate, use and profit from data about individuals.

 

It's really not v tin foil hat - certainly given the stuff that's played out over the last few years in turns of data retention, hacking and manipulation.

[+thebruce0]

I disagree. It's people that do bad things with good or neutral stuff that these days ruin it for everyone else. And GDPR is reaching out to punish companies in other countries beyond the EU for bad things that people in their own country do or experience, if the companies don't comply.  It's far-reaching and a reflection of today's culture of relying on authority to punish All The Things. It's why we have obvious, even laughable, caution labels on products - companies don't want to get sued for someone's lack of common sense. Someone wants themselves off the grid in the internet era? That means All The Companies in the world (at least that operate in the EU) are now responsible to also kill your data that you put on the public internet, beyond the borders of your own country. It's a far-reaching obligation forced on companies that haven't done anything wrong or malicious, for the state of mind of an individual on the other side of the planet. Tech companies have felt the crush of this legislation and we all know how ridiculous the cascade effects can get for websites that now have to implement proper procedures to adhere to these international rules.

Now if every country were to enact the same rules as the UK, that might be different. But then I'd say the whole world had gone mad

If I'm wrong about my understanding of GDPR then that opinion could change. But this is just based on the effects I've seen from this on the internet, for businesses that aren't exclusively in the EU.

But the history of the GDPR debate is easily googleable online (well, at least until it's wiped out for privacy concerns!)

 

 

Anyway, my interpretation of the audit log removal is simply that it's usefulness isn't all that significant, especially compared with the amount of work that would be required to have that tool comply with the GDPR. That's why it was removed.  Yep, it was useful, even for potentially excellent reasons by some, but that wasn't enough according to HQ to outweigh the work required to keep it around. Keeping cache log and listing data was more important, which is why the [deleted user] 'ghost account' workaround was implemented.

[+on4bam]

16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I disagree. It's people that do bad things with good or neutral stuff that these days ruin it for everyone else. And GDPR is reaching out to punish companies in other countries beyond the EU for bad things that people in their own country do or experience,

 

 

To put it very simple, GDPR was introduced mainly because (big) companies (think Google/FB) collected data about people without their consent. They even collected data on people that didn't use their services. Since laws are made to "suit all" there are sometimes unexpected consequences and of course, some companies overreact to these consequences.

So again: correct way to handle audit logs, let users opt-out (in fact, they should opt-in as opt-out should be default).

 

 

BTW, NOW audit logs were creepy and not the many years they were around?

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by on4bam

[+thebruce0]

On 11/4/2019 at 10:35 AM, on4bam said:

To put it very simple, GDPR was introduced mainly because (big) companies (think Google/FB) collected data about people without their consent. They even collected data on people that didn't use their services. Since laws are made to "suit all" there are sometimes unexpected consequences and of course, some companies overreact to these consequences.

 

"collected data about people" must be defined. Some people think "the fact I visited a website" is "data about me" that no one should have because "but my privaseeee!"

Google "shadow profiles" - that's the latest controversy. Guaranteed Groundspeak is not making shadow profiles.  Shadow profiles have absolutely no concrete connection with a person, yet it so happens that the activity gathered may eventually take a similar shape to that of an existing person, and then someone might make the presumptuous claim that the shadow and the person are one and the same. Even though it might not be. But 'shadow profiles' are completely anonymous.  That, to me, is a relevant privacy concern that companies should look into. And enable laws in their own country if they decide. GDPR takes extra steps and enforce a data management protocol to companies in other countries merely about possessing publicly supplied information about an individual.

 

In a way, it is kind of like a grander version of the debate about whether the audit log itself was good or bad, since someone could use it to stalk someone else, even though that's not its purpose. If HQ treated every PM as a stalker because .001% of the userbase used the tool to stalk someone, and that was the reason it was removed, that's getting closer to the GDPR sentiment.  Internet companies have public data, or data willingly given to them. Stored and used for their own reasons, the vast majority of uses not malicious or concerning towards privacy in the slightest. But now they all have to adhere to GDPR rules, at their own expense.  Is it better just to delete the data? Or to adjust its practices (often at great expense) to retain its usefulness without having sufficient connection to a real person to contravene GDPR?  That is no small undertaking, and an enormous ask of Every Company that may have data sourced from an individual residing in the EU.

 

On 11/4/2019 at 10:35 AM, on4bam said:

So again: correct way to handle audit logs, let users opt-out (in fact, they should opt-in as opt-out should be default).

 

I don't disagree.  But I think HQ felt it wasn't worth the development to provide an opt-in flag for this high traffic page-view feature. And yeah, I'd guess to be compliant the flag would literally need to be tested before the page hit was stored, meaning every website page view on a PM listing (if not every single listing, assuming they track that aggressively internally) would also need to check against the opt-in flag. That could be a big performance hit in the grand scheme.

 

On 11/4/2019 at 10:35 AM, on4bam said:

BTW, NOW audit logs were creepy and not the many years they were around?

 

Apparently... from what I've seen, mainly to people who didn't know it existed until this update (which itself is a huge surprise coming from many of the long-time premium members I know!)

Edited November 5, 2019 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Apparently... from what I've seen, mainly to people who didn't know it existed until now (which itself is a huge surprise coming from many of the long-time premium members I know!)

 

I've been caching for six and a half years now, a PM for all but the first couple of months and active on these forums and the local FB groups for the last four or five years. Yes, I'd heard of the audit log, of course, but had never paid any conscious attention to it as none of my caches were PMO. It was only about a month ago when I switched a new cache to PMO after an incident at a physical waypoint that I first saw it in the flesh and even then it was just a curiosity that I didn't pay much attention to.

 

But this thread, and the other one in the Website forum, has been something of a surprising eye-opener to the way some COs have been interpreting audit log information. It's given me cause to wonder how my own cache-page browsing practices might have been seen by someone closely watching their audit logs, of how quite innocent things like skipping a cache I'd viewed while logging finds on others nearby, reading the cache description in a PQ instead of on the website, revisiting the pages of caches I'd already found or repeatedly looking at interesting cache pages that I might never get around to actually attempting, was somehow indicative of devious intent or dishonest logging. That's the creepy bit.

Edited November 4, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

I wouldn't say that's creepy, I'd say that's more like assuming the worst. People who take that conclusion from viewing the audit logs don't know how the audit log works, how incomplete the log is, and seem to want to use it for (or can't help using it for) negative assumptions. Those people I would assume, from an educated guess, are a vast minority. So to assume that the audit log led to more "creepy" usage than informational and productive for "good" COs is, imo, just as inaccurate as their assumptions about what they glean from that info.

 

COs who know what the audit log represents I'd say were a majority of people who used the audit log. Sure, there were some bad apples.  But the audit log itself, inherently, doesn't enable creepiness - people who use it wrongly are the "creepy" people. Personally, I wouldn't care if someone thought I was obsessing over some cache because they saw loads of page hits. Or if they assumed I never looked at it and thus cheated because I solved and found it without showing up in the log. I'd just tell them truth about how the audit log functions, that their conclusions are inaccurate, shrug it off and move on.

Edited November 4, 2019 by thebruce0

[+Isonzo Karst]

It occurs to me that I quite like have the audit log gone. I knew I'd miss it some on my own hides - as others said, when new and puzzles mostly - but I hadn't anticipated how much I'd like having it gone.

I was not one to worry much about appearing on a audit log, at least i wasn't conscious of worrying about it.  but apparently, I was aware. 

 

 

[+cerberus1]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 4:04 PM, barefootjeff said:

But this thread, and the other one in the Website forum, has been something of a surprising eye-opener to the way some COs have been interpreting audit log information.

It's given me cause to wonder how my own cache-page browsing practices might have been seen by someone closely watching their audit logs, of how quite innocent things like skipping a cache I'd viewed while logging finds on others nearby, reading the cache description in a PQ instead of on the website, revisiting the pages of caches I'd already found or repeatedly looking at interesting cache pages that I might never get around to actually attempting, was somehow indicative of devious intent or dishonest logging.

 

Here, we've received mails, or been asked at events sometimes, when I skip by an entire power trail, yet log the "original" cache at the end.  

The reason that power trail was even created ("placed on my way too..."), was that cache.    These have been all standard traditionals.

 - So we've found that odd behavior isn't limited to pmo hides, it was just easier for them to keep track.

Years later,  good or bad, many are kinda used to me by now.   

[+funkymunkyzone]

I'm glad it's gone.  No longer will I feel like someone is watching me when I open a particular cache page - and yes, I've had COs mention to me that they saw I looked at xxxxx page... that was definitely creepy! I feel a whole lot more comfortable now.

[+Goldenwattle]

31 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

I'm glad it's gone.  No longer will I feel like someone is watching me when I open a particular cache page - and yes, I've had COs mention to me that they saw I looked at xxxxx page... that was definitely creepy! I feel a whole lot more comfortable now.

I wouldn't find that at all. I would laugh it off and likely discuss the cache. No, not creepy at all. In fact at times it would be sweet for the CO to know I was taking an interest in their cache. And the same with the reverse. I must admit though I didn't check it that often.

[+thebruce0]

I never felt like someone was watching me viewing a premium cache. I don't like living in a self-made virtual cocoon of paranoia...

[+IceColdUK]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I never felt like someone was watching me viewing a premium cache. I don't like living in a self-made virtual cocoon of paranoia...

 

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.” (Kurt Cobain)

?

[+thebruce0]

Just because they might be after you doesn't mean you have to live like they always are...  or even care.

Edited November 12, 2019 by thebruce0

[+The Jester]

15 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

I'm glad it's gone.  No longer will I feel like someone is watching me when I open a particular cache page - and yes, I've had COs mention to me that they saw I looked at xxxxx page... that was definitely creepy! I feel a whole lot more comfortable now.

But it's not gone, only one less person can now see it (the CO).

 

[+cerberus1]

5 minutes ago, The Jester said:

But it's not gone, only one less person can now see it (the CO).

 

True...

 -  Though along with the offers to participate in promotions, sales on gear, and such,   I've never received a mail from HQ saying,  "You looked at the same cache five times last month."    

[+thebruce0]

And with GDPR, certainly not even HQ will be able to know if someone who's now a deleted user looked at a cache. Only, if anything, that the ambiguous 'deleted user' did. And in time, wow has 'deleted user' looked at whole LOT of geocaches worldwide.

[+funkymunkyzone]

On 11/13/2019 at 7:00 AM, The Jester said:

But it's not gone, only one less person can now see it (the CO).

 

Yes, it's a given that anything you do on the web is logged by the site you are accessing, if not others.  But I think you got my point.

[+funkymunkyzone]

On 11/12/2019 at 3:51 PM, Goldenwattle said:

I wouldn't find that at all. I would laugh it off and likely discuss the cache. No, not creepy at all. In fact at times it would be sweet for the CO to know I was taking an interest in their cache. And the same with the reverse. I must admit though I didn't check it that often.

If I want to discuss a cache with a CO, I'd rather initiate that discussion myself voluntarily.  You still have the option to let the CO know you're taking an interest in their cache - write a note or send them a message.

[+bflentje]

1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

If I want to discuss a cache with a CO, I'd rather initiate that discussion myself voluntarily.  You still have the option to let the CO know you're taking an interest in their cache - write a note or send them a message.

 

Doesn't that initiation happen when you view the premium cache? ;-)

[+funkymunkyzone]

32 minutes ago, bflentje said:

 

Doesn't that initiation happen when you view the premium cache? ;-)

No, because the Audit Log is now gone (no longer viewable by the CO) - yay!

[+HunterandSamuel]

 Being a fairly "young" geocacher, I loved the premium feature of seeing who looked at our cache hides. It was addictive.  Sad to see it gone.  

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, HunterSamuel said:

 Being a fairly "young" geocacher, I loved the premium feature of seeing who looked at our cache hides. It was addictive.  Sad to see it gone.  

 

I left an answer on the other thread you mentioned this.  It didn't really work the way you believe it does. 

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, HunterSamuel said:

 Being a fairly "young" geocacher, I loved the premium feature of seeing who looked at our cache hides. It was addictive.  Sad to see it gone.  

I'm surprised to hear this considering the numerous ways a view to a cache page does NOT show on an audit log. 

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

1 hour ago, HunterSamuel said:

 Being a fairly "young" geocacher, I loved the premium feature of seeing who looked at our cache hides. It was addictive.  Sad to see it gone.  

I'm surprised to hear this considering the numerous ways a view to a cache page does NOT show on an audit log. 

 

The other side of the coin is that many of the website cache page views probably didn't equate to any genuine interest in your caches. I often browse cache pages for all sorts of reasons - they might come up in search results, be caches my friends have done or mentioned that I look at to see what they've been doing, are ones in an area I might be passing through on some future trip (which might or mightn't eventuate), or even in souvenir promotions like the recent Mystery at the Museum, simply have whatever attributes might be needed for that. I'd say very few of my cache page visits ever translate into a find (or DNF) on that cache.

 

A good example of this can be seen in challenge caches where the Project GC checker shows how many successful and unsuccessful qualification checks have been run. On the two challenge caches I own, these are the numbers of qualification checks and actual finds:

• GC752YF - 129 green lights, 130 red lights, 11 finds
• GC8DQXK - 75 green lights, 138 red lights, 2 finds

Most of those checker hits would have probably come via the cache page and so would've been in the audit log if those had been PM caches, but are more like tyre-kicking in a used car yard than actual purchases.

[+The A-Team]

3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The other side of the coin is that many of the website cache page views probably didn't equate to any genuine interest in your caches. I often browse cache pages for all sorts of reasons - they might come up in search results, be caches my friends have done or mentioned that I look at to see what they've been doing, are ones in an area I might be passing through on some future trip (which might or mightn't eventuate), or even in souvenir promotions like the recent Mystery at the Museum, simply have whatever attributes might be needed for that. I'd say very few of my cache page visits ever translate into a find (or DNF) on that cache.

 

Yep. There are countless reasons why a cache listing might get opened up, only one of which is that someone is interested in seeking the cache. Add in the fact that the-app-that-shall-not-be-named would cause a user to show up in the audit log even if they didn't actually open the listing, and the end result is that the audit log really never gave any useful information about the level of interest in the cache. All it did was give you information about when the listing on the website was accessed. It told you nothing about the reason for accessing the cache listing, whether that was genuine interest, revisiting to read a log, a nefarious muggle, a ToU-violating app, following a link from the forums, a mis-typed GC code, an accidental click in a list of search results, etc.

 

It seems that a lot of people didn't truly understand what the audit log was actually telling them.

[+The Jester]

A lot of you keep hammering the "they never showed all the info of who looked at the cache" idea.  So what!  It was still some information/data about the cache, now we have no data.  I thought of it like a traffic cam - it shows a snapshot of what traffic is like (there are a few streaming traffic cams, but most around here just show a picture every so often), not full data like speed or how fast the snow is accumulating, but you can get an idea of the conditions by that camera.  Helpful for some, meaningless to others.  The same with the audit log - it showed some info about the cache that was meaningful to some but not others.  So let's quit the "it didn't show everything so it was meaningless" line and agree some liked and miss it.  And those creeped out about being "tracked" on cache pages can now worry about their movements being tracked by traffic cams...

[+cghove]

I'm just glad that Groundspeak don't do this to avoid GDPR...

 

[+HunterandSamuel]

On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 4:45 PM, cerberus1 said:

 

I left an answer on the other thread you mentioned this.  It didn't really work the way you believe it does. 

Thanks, Cerberus1! 

It's funny, although I loved seeing who looked at my caches...I do feel a sense of relief knowing my name doesn't show up 10+ times on someone's audit log. lol

[+HunterandSamuel]

10 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Thanks, Cerberus1! 

It's funny, although I loved seeing who looked at my caches...I do feel a sense of relief knowing my name doesn't show up 10+ times on someone's audit log. lol

I just want to add...I didn't know that when using a phone, my name doesn't show up in audit logs. I do use the computer mostly before heading out to find caches and then use the app on my phone.