Live data from Hacker News

Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

fonts.bunny.net

161–170 of 346 posts

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#161
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between the joke of an energy policy in Germany this year and Douglas Murray’s books I have no confidence in European governments either. I used to feel Europe’s system was more competent but the illusion has been shattered.

To add to that now every other website has an annoying and useless cookie dialog I have to dismiss, as if that's forward progress in privacy protection.

That is the website owners implementing the rules in the worst way possible, either through incompetence or through deliberately trying to annoy (or fool) you into accepting everything.

Be angry at the sites, not the legislation.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a European and I have very little trust in European governments. Not much trust in the US government, either.

Yep, and also the whole EU... Every few months, they either want to make encrpytion illegal, scan more private data, scan files on end user devices, outright ban e2e encryption, or worse.

And we can thank EU for the extremely annoying cookie pop-up’s on every website. Every site has a slightly different UI and the options/button labels always vary. Declining is always a multi-step process with various checkboxes.

They are never geo-filtered either so everyone is forced to see them.

I’m usually a big advocate for privacy and this was obviously done with good intentions but there were so many better ways to do it and I doubt 99% of people do anything but click okay without reading it.

At least if the browsers did it the UI would be standardized and you could have default persistent settings.

Now that there has been a massive effort to implement it I doubt it will ever get fixed or go away. Even though the decline of supercookies and Firefox’s new 3rd party policy has largely made it obsolete.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#163
post #31

I find it really strange where some privacy debates have gone wrong, and this is a perfect example. It's basically a form of "don't trust them, better trust us, also we're in a country with better privacy laws". Which is an imperfect solution at best, and given that I have no idea who bunny.net is it's a questionable one at best. If you embed a font hosted somewhere else you expose some of your user data to them. Now…

> If you embed a font hosted somewhere else you expose some of your user data to them. Now with fonts there's a really simple solution: Just don't. As an added bonus, hosting fonts on your own server is faster as it goes through the same HTTP connection. I never quite understood the debate around fonts. You could use the CSS/Link import that Google provides, but that's never the optimal solution. Like you I always do…

If the font is already in your browser cache (which it might be if they're hosting it on a common CDN) web pages should load with the correct font right away instead of either loading blank areas or a default fallback font before switching to the correct font, causing jank.

The best solution here is to use standard fonts that are available in all browsers, of course.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#164
post #31

I find it really strange where some privacy debates have gone wrong, and this is a perfect example. It's basically a form of "don't trust them, better trust us, also we're in a country with better privacy laws". Which is an imperfect solution at best, and given that I have no idea who bunny.net is it's a questionable one at best. If you embed a font hosted somewhere else you expose some of your user data to them. Now…

You can self host Google fonts, so you need to trust no one. Not sure if I see the point of this service.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrote a quick Python script to explore alternatives. The best I found with two words was: - The quick brown bunny jumps over the lazy podgy fox. If you want to do it with one word you can do: - The quick brown bunny jumps over the oversexualized dragonfly.

A touch of DRY and you get: - The quick brown bunny jumps the oversexualized dragonfly.

Or “The quick brown bunny jumps over the sexualized dragonfly”, which scans a little better for me.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#166
post #31

I find it really strange where some privacy debates have gone wrong, and this is a perfect example. It's basically a form of "don't trust them, better trust us, also we're in a country with better privacy laws". Which is an imperfect solution at best, and given that I have no idea who bunny.net is it's a questionable one at best. If you embed a font hosted somewhere else you expose some of your user data to them. Now…

We can reasonably assume that bunny.net doesn't also correlate, cross-link, and permanently store which sites our IPs visit, for the purposes of enhanced ad delivery. Which Google does: that's literally what every single service they offer does in addition to "the thing you need that service for". Even sites that don't offer Google ads or Google analytics _still provide Google with behavioural data linked to you_ by…

I don't think we can reasonably assume either of those things. You're speculating about both Google Fonts and Bunny fonts based on very little information.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#167
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding of privacy international privacy stuff is if a European gov wants to spy on their own citizens, but the law prevents them, they phone up the USA and have the USA do the spying(hacking?) and get the data from them. European countries do the same for USA gov on US citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes?wprov=sfti1 In the US at least, any spying is illegal when both parties are within the US and the packets never leave the US.

> In the US at least, any spying is illegal when both parties are within the US

And no doubt it must be even more illegal to then perjure yourself in front of congress about not having engaged in such illegal spying, when in fact you have.

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#168
post #75
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Chrome send the unique identifier with Google Fonts API requests? If so, they don't need cookies.

Are you talking about the x-client-data header (which isn't unique, but is relatively high entropy at For example, when I look at a Google Fonts request in Chrome developer tools I see: x-client-data: CKe1yQEIkrbJAQiitskBCMS2yQEIqZ3KAQiVocsBCOeEzAEIhKvMAQjys8wBCL+1zAE= Decoded: message ClientVariations { // Active client experiment variation IDs. repeated int32 variation_id = [3300007, 3300114, 3300130, 3300164, 3313…

> is relatively high entropy at That is only true if-and-only-if we pretend those 13 bits are the only identifying information being sent to Google when requesting a font. The HTTP request is almost certainly being sent to Google wrapped inside an IP protocol packet. For most[1] requests, there are at least 24 additional bits (why 24? see: [3]) of very-identifying data in the IPv4 Source Address field. More fingerprinting can be probably done on other protocol fields, and IPv6 obviously adds an additional 96 bits. Yes, IP addresses are not unique, but ~13 bits is easily sufficient to disambiguate most hosts on a private network behind a typical NAT. Correlating the tuple {IPv4 Src Addr, x-client-data} received on a font request is trivial: it only requires a user to login to any Google webpage that includes a font request.

>> re: your [1]

    A given Chrome installation may be participating in a number
    of different variations (for different features) at the
    same time. These fall into two categories:

       Low entropy variations, which are randomized based
         on a number from 0 to 7999 (13 bits) that's randomly
         generated by each Chrome installation on the first run.

       High entropy variations, which are randomized using
         the usage statistics token for Chrome installations
         that have usage statistics reporting enabled.
How many users have 'usage statistics reporting' enabled, and are there for a "High entropy variation"? Is it enabled by default and thus will only be disabled by the minority of people that know how to opt-out?

[1] Google reports[2] they currently see about a 60%/40% ratio of IPv4/IPv6.

[2] https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html

[3] my previous posts on this topic - re: x-client-data https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23562285 re: 24-bits-per-IPv4 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15167059

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#169
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and also the whole EU... Every few months, they either want to make encrpytion illegal, scan more private data, scan files on end user devices, outright ban e2e encryption, or worse.

And we can thank EU for the extremely annoying cookie pop-up’s on every website. Every site has a slightly different UI and the options/button labels always vary. Declining is always a multi-step process with various checkboxes. They are never geo-filtered either so everyone is forced to see them. I’m usually a big advocate for privacy and this was obviously done with good intentions but there were so many better way…

> Declining is always a multi-step process with various checkboxes.

https://oblador.github.io/hush/

You're welcome!

Re: Bunny fonts – privacy respecting drop-in replacement for Google Fonts

#170
post #31

I find it really strange where some privacy debates have gone wrong, and this is a perfect example. It's basically a form of "don't trust them, better trust us, also we're in a country with better privacy laws". Which is an imperfect solution at best, and given that I have no idea who bunny.net is it's a questionable one at best. If you embed a font hosted somewhere else you expose some of your user data to them. Now…

> we're in a country with better privacy laws Speaking as a European: I think this is a very important topic for us. I don't think Americans and American companies understand how little trust rest of us have for the American government. Working with a company that is not subject to the whims of the American government is a huge privacy win. If a company pitches me a product, they start 1 points ahead if they are base…

The US government has some restrictions of spying on inside the country. Much less so abroad.

So you're safer from the USG inside the US.

Then again, they don't have a great track record of following those restrictions, so I doubt it really matters.

Post reply on HN