191–200 of 656 posts
Reductio ad absurdum: if serving fonts from Google is “unnecessary” and leaks information, so would be using any CDN service to deliver any content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that is true but it increases the barrier to entry for those who use google fonts for system resource issues, a lot of people offload because they don’t have the space or money to self host everything one could argue that it is less eco friendly as well given how much space is going to be used repeating the same file on a multitude of servers
A $5 VPS comes with several gigabytes of storage. A standard web font (e.g. Roboto) is ~1MB. Bandwidth is essentially free through CloudFlare. Who doesn't have the space or money to self-host their fonts?
The ruling says the website owner illegally shared the user’s IP address with Google. AFAIK, this is an incorrect interpret of events. The website merely tells the user’s browser that the content is intended to be displayed using a font that, if not installed on the user’s computer, can be downloaded from Google’s server. It is the the user’s browser that initiates a request to Google’s server. A request by the websi…
> It is the the user’s browser that initiates a request to Google’s server. A request by the website itself to Google sharing the user’s IP address never actually occurs. Manipulating a system so that it gives up information that wasn't intended to be given away, is called hacking.
It's not hacking.
The ruling says the website owner illegally shared the user’s IP address with Google. AFAIK, this is an incorrect interpret of events. The website merely tells the user’s browser that the content is intended to be displayed using a font that, if not installed on the user’s computer, can be downloaded from Google’s server. It is the the user’s browser that initiates a request to Google’s server. A request by the websi…
The end result is that the fact that you visited this website is passed to Google, and this can then be used for advertising purposes.
Can it? Is this within the range what Google is allowed to do in the EU right now?
Because, if that is the case and we also wanted to stop that, wouldn't it be a lot more reasonable to just... forbid Google from doing that, instead of slapping every confused wordpress hack in the EU with a fine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if there is no way to embed Youtube videos without leaking the address But there is. Where does it stop being reasonable? When you have to host your own video delivery infrastructure?
I think there is not. You are not allowed to download the video and host it yourself, that would be a copyright violation. Am I missing a legally valid way?
Do you still think it’s reasonable that it should be a legal requirement that to embed a video on your web page you must develop your own video delivery infrastructure?
The ruling says the website owner illegally shared the user’s IP address with Google. AFAIK, this is an incorrect interpret of events. The website merely tells the user’s browser that the content is intended to be displayed using a font that, if not installed on the user’s computer, can be downloaded from Google’s server. It is the the user’s browser that initiates a request to Google’s server. A request by the websi…
I wouldn't say so. By making use of the Google Fonts service, the website owner set up a scenario where the browser would then share the user's IP with Google. That's the default behavior of most browser setups. It's as good as sharing with Google directly, no? I feel like the scenario is similar to setting up a trap. Technically the victim activates the mechanism, but surely the one who sets the trap carries the blame?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
the car example again. There is a legal framework that has certain requirements. Enforced by a court here. These laws are from elected representatives of the people. So they are binding. Like it or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Why would you serve your own copy of the fonts if a previous request to that cdn may have cached them in your browser already? Opt-In goes against the architecture of websites. What's next? A popup for each third party request? It is not feasible and just another stumbling block - like Impressum for private persons and third party cookie consent to host websites in Germany. It makes more sense to fix the iss…
The browsers don't share third-party caches across domains, because it made it easier to leak information about which sites the user has visited.
Do you have a source for this? I believe(d?) it too, but when re-checking just now, I could not find any.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> not forced to follow the instructions Again, you're talking about an opt-out. GPDR (the law) requires an opt-in.
I don't think forcing each and every single website provider to implement their own consent forms is the right approach to regulating this. User agents should have the ability to convey and enforce privacy preferences on behalf of the user, and website providers should be legally required to comply with these if possible (or refuse service if not). But requiring ever more complex, explicit and custom opt-in consent f…
If the option B seems unwanted for some reason (any reason), there is still option A. Implementing a different solution (that breaks the law) has consequences.