Analytics and marketing tools used on all websites – such as Google Analytics, GTM (both client- and server-side), Facebook Pixel, and many more – are increasingly blocked by privacy tools and ad blockers. As a result, 15–50% of front-end data (conversions, attribution, referrals) never reaches dashboards. This missing data has long been accepted as the norm, to the point where front-end analytics are treated as unreliable and approximate.
DataUnlocker 2.0 offers a drop-in solution: a proxy and JavaScript protection layer that shields tracking from blockers. It becomes an integral part of your web application — not only hiding analytics from generic blocking filters, but also making the code essential for the app to function. Blockers simply have no safe way to remove it.
They'd need to block all JavaScript – essentially disabling interactivity — or develop custom workarounds for every single website, ensuring they don't break any logic (like checkout flows). That’s an utterly extreme complexity solution (believe me, DataUnlocker is, too). I hope to publish an article soon outlining a more cooperative path forward, where blockers and websites don't have to be at odds. Part of that will include DataUnlocker's internal rules, just like cookie consent mechanisms – but thoughtfully introduced over time.
Here's the bigger picture, from my point of view:
The web is shifting toward consent-based tracking – and rightly so. Cookie and data collection consents are now standard (and even legally required in the EU). DataUnlocker is fully compatible with this. When implemented on the website, it activates only after user consent – just like any compliant tracking setup. The tech to do that wasn't trivial a few years ago, and it still catches up. https://support.google.com/tagmanager/answer/10718549?hl=en
In fact, if you visit pages with an ad blocker, cookie consent modals will not even appear – meaning no tracking starts at all. That's a win–win: privacy respected, no shady behavior, "no" is the default. Big companies can't afford to violate that.
What DataUnlocker addresses is a different issue:
Let's say a user wants to grant "essential" tracking consent — they've consented — but uses an ad blocker by default. They load the page, bounce in 5 seconds, and are gone. Most won't bother to disable the blocker for 5 seconds – maybe 1–2% will. So how do you solve this from the publisher's perspective?
Even the best tools can be misused (think Google Sheets). But when used responsibly, DataUnlocker simply helps fix a technical blind spot – surely not spy on people who didn't opt in.
Given that "consent walls" are not legal in Europe (https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/gdpr-no-cookie-consent-walls/) and the likes of Google explicitly have a JS blocking extension for users who don't want to consent to tags I really don't see how this is legal in my jurisdiction.
I don't want to be tracked. I want privacy. If this appeared on a website I cared about, I'd stop using it -- and that includes ones like the guardian, for whom I pay a subscription but always browse privately and adblock. If I saw it on another site, I'd most likely move on. I browse with dev tools open and do actually watch xhr requests: this would stick out like a sore thumb.
Sigh, can't wait for someone to break it. Same way secure enclaves and anti-crack tools always are. What an awful product, I can feel my food coming back up when reading manipulative garbage like:
> In 2025, the popularity of ad blockers, VPNs, and privacy browsers continues to grow and disrupt how websites and web apps operate.
Is a bit like saying "We are proud to present the performance collars 2.0. Many mining operations are increasingly affected by employees managing to break free of their performance collars, especially younger employees below the age of 12. With the new and improved performance collars 2.0 you can improve site productivity by 15-50% depending on your employee demographics."
Building tools to give the more powerful parties in an interaction, i.e. corporations even more power against users sucks, and speaks of an utter lack of moral character.
And before anyone comments, saying, no no analytics are good for users and the benevolent companies with great track records will use this power for good, go and read [1], a small excerp:
> There's plenty else WEI can do (it would make detecting ad-fraud much easier), but for every legitimate use, there are a hundred ways this could be abused. It's a technology purpose-built to allow rent extraction by stripping us of our right to technological self-determination. Releasing a technology like this into a world where companies are willing to make their products less reliable, less attractive, less safe and less resilient in pursuit of rents is incredibly reckless and shortsighted. You want unauthorized bread? This is how you get Unauthorized Bread.
7 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 25.5 ms ] threadDataUnlocker 2.0 offers a drop-in solution: a proxy and JavaScript protection layer that shields tracking from blockers. It becomes an integral part of your web application — not only hiding analytics from generic blocking filters, but also making the code essential for the app to function. Blockers simply have no safe way to remove it.
Your feedback is welcome – happy to dive deeper.
https://icecatbrowser.org/
Jshelter will block that shit https://jshelter.org/
Detects and blocks nonfree and potentially dangerous JavaScript.
I am sure Ublocks gorhill will be on this
Here's the bigger picture, from my point of view:
The web is shifting toward consent-based tracking – and rightly so. Cookie and data collection consents are now standard (and even legally required in the EU). DataUnlocker is fully compatible with this. When implemented on the website, it activates only after user consent – just like any compliant tracking setup. The tech to do that wasn't trivial a few years ago, and it still catches up. https://support.google.com/tagmanager/answer/10718549?hl=en
In fact, if you visit pages with an ad blocker, cookie consent modals will not even appear – meaning no tracking starts at all. That's a win–win: privacy respected, no shady behavior, "no" is the default. Big companies can't afford to violate that.
What DataUnlocker addresses is a different issue:
Let's say a user wants to grant "essential" tracking consent — they've consented — but uses an ad blocker by default. They load the page, bounce in 5 seconds, and are gone. Most won't bother to disable the blocker for 5 seconds – maybe 1–2% will. So how do you solve this from the publisher's perspective?
Even the best tools can be misused (think Google Sheets). But when used responsibly, DataUnlocker simply helps fix a technical blind spot – surely not spy on people who didn't opt in.
I don't want to be tracked. I want privacy. If this appeared on a website I cared about, I'd stop using it -- and that includes ones like the guardian, for whom I pay a subscription but always browse privately and adblock. If I saw it on another site, I'd most likely move on. I browse with dev tools open and do actually watch xhr requests: this would stick out like a sore thumb.
This product is not ethical.
> In 2025, the popularity of ad blockers, VPNs, and privacy browsers continues to grow and disrupt how websites and web apps operate.
Is a bit like saying "We are proud to present the performance collars 2.0. Many mining operations are increasingly affected by employees managing to break free of their performance collars, especially younger employees below the age of 12. With the new and improved performance collars 2.0 you can improve site productivity by 15-50% depending on your employee demographics."
Building tools to give the more powerful parties in an interaction, i.e. corporations even more power against users sucks, and speaks of an utter lack of moral character.
And before anyone comments, saying, no no analytics are good for users and the benevolent companies with great track records will use this power for good, go and read [1], a small excerp:
> There's plenty else WEI can do (it would make detecting ad-fraud much easier), but for every legitimate use, there are a hundred ways this could be abused. It's a technology purpose-built to allow rent extraction by stripping us of our right to technological self-determination. Releasing a technology like this into a world where companies are willing to make their products less reliable, less attractive, less safe and less resilient in pursuit of rents is incredibly reckless and shortsighted. You want unauthorized bread? This is how you get Unauthorized Bread.
[1] https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/