3 ms·

TypeKit does indeed send tracking data back to Adobe through the domain p.typekit.net. This is also likely reflected in Adobe's privacy policy. Luckily, it is

by Sephr 6y ago

TypeKit does indeed send tracking data back to Adobe through the domain p.typekit.net. This is also likely reflected in Adobe's privacy policy. Luckily, it is possible to use Content-Security-Policy or client-side scripts to block this domain while allowing use.typekit.net, which simply hosts the font files.

eli 6y ago
Like I said, they keep track of font usage. The billing is based on usage. That domain sets no cookies and the privacy policy doesn't permit the data to be used for ads: https://www.adobe.com/privacy/policies/adobe-fonts.html https://www.adobe.com/privacy/policies/adobe-fonts.html It's not ad tech. I think this is the problem with the "high score" approach to measuring the privacy impact of a site. Number of third-party cookies or "trackers" is not a great proxy for how well a site actually protects your data in ways you care about. I would also add New Relic as an example of a site that really shouldn't be in a list of "ad tech."
- arp242 6y ago
  "Tracking" is almost a weasel word these days. What matters is what is tracks. Tracking some things is just fine, IMO. The problem now is a lack of trust, not the least of which because there's often not that much transparency and very little accountability in the way of law, as well as various actors that constantly try to skirt the line (i.e. Facebook, Google, etc.)
- Sephr 6y ago
  I've observed requests to p.typekit.com that appear to have high-entropy identifiers in GET parameters, so I would still consider it potential user tracking. > Like I said, they keep track of font usage. The billing is based on usage. Adobe should be measuring usage based on referrers to their CDN. > the privacy policy doesn't permit [...] I'd prefer no tracking at all instead of trusting the goodwill of a company to follow through with its privacy policy.

by Sephr 6y ago

eli 6y ago

Like I said, they keep track of font usage. The billing is based on usage. That domain sets no cookies and the privacy policy doesn't permit the data to be used for ads: https://www.adobe.com/privacy/policies/adobe-fonts.html https://www.adobe.com/privacy/policies/adobe-fonts.html It's not ad tech. I think this is the problem with the "high score" approach to measuring the privacy impact of a site. Number of third-party cookies or "trackers" is not a great proxy for how well a site actually protects your data in ways you care about. I would also add New Relic as an example of a site that really shouldn't be in a list of "ad tech."

arp242 6y ago
"Tracking" is almost a weasel word these days. What matters is what is tracks. Tracking some things is just fine, IMO. The problem now is a lack of trust, not the least of which because there's often not that much transparency and very little accountability in the way of law, as well as various actors that constantly try to skirt the line (i.e. Facebook, Google, etc.)
Sephr 6y ago
I've observed requests to p.typekit.com that appear to have high-entropy identifiers in GET parameters, so I would still consider it potential user tracking. > Like I said, they keep track of font usage. The billing is based on usage. Adobe should be measuring usage based on referrers to their CDN. > the privacy policy doesn't permit [...] I'd prefer no tracking at all instead of trusting the goodwill of a company to follow through with its privacy policy.