201–210 of 656 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Browser can be configured not to send this data. If I ask you to jump from the bridge, and you do, how is it my fault that you chose to comply?
So code in frontend would be "asking" in this case, in your opinion? Javascript is executed by default by all major browser deployments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is true. But the request containing that information is being sent by your own computer. It’s bit a “doing” of the website owner.
But if the website uses a URL that is unique for that site, or even for each user, that is absolutely something I'd hold the website owner responsible for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could also say that the user is opting in to loading a font from google when he actively sends the request to google. You could also say the user is opting in to storing cookies by accepting the file and writing it to his own disk, and sending the file back when the site asks for it. I think it is too late for these kinds of arguments in the EU though, and maybe with good reason, if it turns out the average citiz…
It hardly matters in the court of law what you "could also say". The law is clear: you don't have to send your users' data to third parties, but if you decide to do it, you have to receive their informed consent first . In this case, the defendant chose to send personal data to a third party without receiving their informed consent. The option of conforming with the law by not sending that data anywhere still stands,…
>It hardly matters in the court of law what you "could also say".
On the contrary, it's exactly what the court is there for.
Unfortunately, GDPR is an insane web of laws and regulations that any non-lawyer has absolutely no hope of understanding.
The whole thing, including guides, is much shorter than the spec for HTML: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/
Probably clearer, too.
And just like for specs there are even better third party doc sites you can use: https://gdpr-info.eu/
Dry reads, but it's not like RFCs are heart wrenching novels either :-D
-Benedict Evans
Reductio ad absurdum: if serving fonts from Google is “unnecessary” and leaks information, so would be using any CDN service to deliver any content.
A CDN that sells your data (or doesn’t otherwise protect it) is more accurately termed “spying network”
on the other hand, always host your fonts
Reductio ad absurdum: if serving fonts from Google is “unnecessary” and leaks information, so would be using any CDN service to deliver any content.
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…
In the end, the w3c standards define, that browsers execute the commands they receive from the server and in this case, the server tells the browser to download the font. So the site-owner configures his website in a way, that this site instructs browser to share the IP address.