GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by using Google Fonts

Post by ab_testing » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 5:52 PM UTC

onli wrote: post #23

HatchedLake721 wrote: post #3

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…

Why "what the hell"? This is exactly what happened, and a logical consequence the moment IP addresses are classified as private data. Which it is in a system where it can be used to find the civil identity of the user, which is the case in Germany via Vorratsdatenspeicherung and the rampant misuse of the legal system. Note how the decision contains the question of whether leaking the IP was necessary. They noted it i…

Post by jstummbillig » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

Acinyx wrote: post #343

jstummbillig wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why? Why must you do that to begin with? ELI5: Why does the EU not just prevent Google from using personal data they receive by law in any way they see fit? Would that not be a lot more effective than requiring the millions of small businesses and small web devs to figure it out on their end?

That's the main revenue stream of Google it would pretty much mean Google itself would be forbidden. The EU gives companies the option and only requires all this hoopla if you want to use the data for something else than the user requested. The "problem" is that Google does want that, as they are an advertising network, so they give web developers access to their tools but tell you that you have to ask the user for c…

Post by bufferoverflow » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 6:01 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #539

southerntofu wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the website ordered your browser to contact Google without informing you, for no obvious purpose. That's not exactly how consent works.

1) google won't know what site told the browser to do that. 2) this is probably more of a browser issue than a site issue. 3) the reason browsers dont complain about content coming from different domains is because the entire ad industry depends on that behavior. That may need to stop ;-)

Post by eps » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

mbar84 wrote: post #516

eps wrote: post #460

Finally. Took them long enough. There is literally no other business reason for Google to maintain Google Fonts, but to augment its tracking insights. None. That's the sole purpose of the very existence of Google Fonts.

Oh come off it. There's a reason it's popular: it's useful. You can search for fonts and use them without having to host them yourself. I argue for downloading fonts yourself and hosting them yourself: https://google-webfonts-helper.herokuapp.com/fonts But let's not pretend that isn't an extra step that some people regard as unjustified.

Post by tzs » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

ksec wrote: post #205

My working theory of GDPR is that absolutely anyone on earth who has used the internet could be found to have broken the rules. -Benedict Evans