351–360 of 656 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depending on the circumstances, telling people to jump from the bridge can be a crime.
Ok, don't jump from a bridge. Take off your clothes, and go to your neighbors, I'm asking you right now. Are you going to comply?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_phone_call_scam#T...
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 plaintiff’s IP address was also leaked to every intermediate router and potentially to the DNS server(s) that resolved the IP address.
The sharing with ruters etc. is required to operate the service (website). Using a Google CDN for fonts isn't (required for operating a website).
The ruling explicitly points that out.
Furthermore DNS is handled by the contract you signed with you ISP or you explicitly changing it. Same for some other parts.
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…
"Your honor, I merely told the gun to strike the firing pin. Without a round chambered in, the gun wouldn't have done anything."
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…
So does this mean assets hosted by CDNs are illegal now? Since it doesn't ask the user's permission to direct the browser to another site to download said assets? And what if they're already cached in the browser. Distinction? Seems like laws don't understand how tech works...
You’ll soon have to fill out a form as if undergoing surgery just to visit a website. (And, of course, were all gonna click “Accept all”, just as we do with cookie warnings and Apple TOS.)
These judges do not know what they do. They only care about getting the case off their desk, clinging to the first semi plausible argument that allows them to do so. If you look for vision, guidance or responsibility for shaping the future I which we want to live, look elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the w3c standards define, that browsers execute the commands they receive from the server I'm no expert in the matter, but this seems a little convoluted to me? To me, the server does not issue instructions, per se, it returns a declarative text/binary response that describes the sturcture of the website, it is then up to the browser, that the user installed and chooses to use and may configure (and possibly config…
Try making this argument with compiled code instead of HTML: "The company included the code to do $BAD_THING in the binary executable, but it was the user's choice to run it, and he could have easily modified the binary to ignore $BAD_THING, but didn't. Therefore, it was the user doing $BAD_THING, not the company." A lot of people in this discussion are splitting hairs here, trying to blame the user or the browser. T…
This is a problem because people (in general) are not good at understanding or reasoning about what computers do... and the entire purpose of the web is to put a simplifying, abstract model in between what humans want to do and how computers work. Models are always wrong, sometimes useful. The web is very useful because it is wrong.
If the web were more like Gemini -- I'm not advocating for this -- every link would be an explicit change, and the argument that a reasonable person would be aware that different things came from different entities would be solid. If JavaScript existed but a web page could not request any resource from a non-origin domain, the argument would be solid.
It's not reasonable for a random user to have to internalize a model that says that sometimes the font used by a page is local, sometimes it is supplied by the website, and sometimes it is a call to a third party. It's true, but it's not reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just technical details. For all I care the website executes the code on my computer without my volition.
So turn that off or don't use that browser? Where's your personal responsibility here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
There are two options to do what's required by the law: either A. not sending users' personal data to third parties; or B. receive informed consent from the users before sending their personal data to third parties. 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.
In reality, websites will add more crap "opt in" CYA forms at first loading, making the interaction fugly and unusable. We can discuss here in HN how that is unnecessary and whatnot, but that's what's going to happen...
I just wish that websites wouldn't force us outside of the EU to the asinine UX required by the EU (I hate having to press ACCEPT ALL on each page I visit.... whatever I dont want is already blocked by an extension anyways).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the w3c standards define, that browsers execute the commands they receive from the server I'm no expert in the matter, but this seems a little convoluted to me? To me, the server does not issue instructions, per se, it returns a declarative text/binary response that describes the sturcture of the website, it is then up to the browser, that the user installed and chooses to use and may configure (and possibly config…
I think you confuse user, the Human, and user, the Programming Idiom. User, the Human, is not going to be asked weather or not the browser should open every one of the possibly hundreds of references in a web page!! Now, user, the Programming Idiom, might be configured, programed, etc.. to behave differently, but the reality is that is that's not how the modern web works. If the browser is not configured to behave th…
Exactly, because we strive for a balance of convienience with complexity. Most people wouldn't mind downloading a font from Google, they already use it directly anyway. This isn't how law works, as an engineer, I'm just trying to find some sanity in what to me seems like an insane court decision with possibly very big repercussions for the rest of the internet.
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…
Running a website in Germany seems like a god damned nightmare: https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/abmahnung-creative-commons