241–250 of 656 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think google fonts exist? For google to Get visitor IP all over the web without any form of user consent, this is exactly what the gdpr tries to kill.
What value exactly is there in Google seeing that IP X requested font Y, assuming there’s no Referer header - which there won’t be, assuming Referer-Policy is set sanely (which by default it is in all browsers)?
Remember that your user agent is sent as well.
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 transfer of the user's IP address in the above-mentioned manner and the associated encroachment on general personal rights
Furthermore, the court is correct in stating that:
> The use of font services such as Google Fonts cannot be based on Article 6 Paragraph 1 S.1 lit. f GDPR, since the use of fonts is also possible without the visitor having to connect to Google servers.
Let's not be naive, we all know the purpose of Google offering these fonts for free via their CDN. As the author of a website, I think it's completely sensible that you should be responsible for the decision of embedding these fonts from Google rather than just serving them yourself: you are, in fact, "leaking" the IP addresses of your visitors to Google without their consent.
This is in my mind just another one of those things that have been considered completely normal for a long time, but really shouldn't. A bit like how literally everyone used Google Analytics 15 years ago without really thinking about what that meant for the ethical processing of personal data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When talking about UX, there's this bad habit of using people's mothers or grandmothers as examples, because they are 'too stupid' to understand the UI that was built. Aside from the obvious problems, this also implicitly removes blame from the designer/implementor of the interface. I always prefer to reframe it as someone with a very important, intelligence requiring job, say vaccine reasearcher, who doesn't have ti…
Quoted post unavailable.
Hopefully we won't see popups like "This site will forward your IP address to Google is that OK?", because I'm already beyond bored with "This site uses cookies do you accept?".
I too was pissed about the popups until I realized it the companies throwing up the popups that are to blame. Hosting all your assets by yourself, on your own servers and doing analytics without sending data to a third party is not a terribly tall order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using this logic I can send full fingerprinting data as long as I do it from the front-end? I mean courts are not that dumb, it's still the website owner which decides what is done.
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?
Can you someone translate? Does this mean that hot linking any static media or asset from a third party is against the law unless explicit approval from the user is first received?
So an HTTP GET request to another domain (fonts.googleapis.com) "leaked" website visitor's IP address to Google. What the hell? Google Translate: https://rewis-io.translate.goog/urteile/urteil/lhm-20-01-202... > The defendant is sentenced to pay the plaintiff €100.00 > The plaintiff has a claim against the defendant to refrain from passing on the plaintiff's IP addresses to Google under Section 823 (1) in conjunction…
The whole strategy with Google providing “services for everyone out of pure gratitude” is: - With Google Fonts, to track the identity of users AND the real popularity of websites, - With Google DNS 8.8.8.8, to track everyone’s DNS resolutions, - With Google Analytics, to track who sees what, even if they only display masked IPs to the owner of the GA profile, - Etc with Google Maps, emails, they don’t provide those s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
But technically, the user itself is sending his own data to the third party, and the original website is merely requesting the user to do so. You could interpret it like this: "To use this website, it's best if you have this font. You can get it from here: https://google.com/fonts/blah ". It's not exactly the same case as a more obvious GDPR violation, where the website would collect information from the user, and th…
There is a case for third-party requests, and considering that some websites make tens and sometimes hundreds (eg Yahoo) of third-party requests, passing the burden of filtering those requests to the customer doesn't really scale.
The burden is fully on the website operator here. They wrote the software, and it's most certainly closed-source. Just as the burden of keeping my data safe on their backend is on them, the burden of keeping my data safe on my frontend is also on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Okay but let’s say you have permission to host the content — e.g: you actually own the video. 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?
I already agreed in a comment above that these questions wrongly answered by a pure privacy maximizing position carry a huge danger for the german web.