3 ms·

The reasoning behind this judgement is: The services (here: web fonts) could be supplied another way, so exposing the user's IP to google is not strictly neces

The reasoning behind this judgement is: The services (here: web fonts) could be supplied another way, so exposing the user's IP to google is not strictly necessary, from a technical POV. The user's IP is PII, and exposing it unnecessarily to third party is a GDPR violation. The way this is phrased, the reasoning applies to basically every static resource loaded from a CDN or other third-party website.

lucian1900 5y ago
It’s “personal data” in GDPR. PII is the US concept and much narrower.
- kevincox 5y ago
  > The services (here: web fonts) could be supplied another way The problem here is that every service could be provided another way. It seems that the only actual hosting option that doesn't leak a user's IP to a thrird-party is first-party only over Tor. Do we demand that every website is built that way? It turns out that outsourcing actually has a lot of value. So where do we draw the line? Google Fonts apparently needs to be reimplemented first-party. What about Google Cloud CDN? What about an ISP that sees the user's IP in the packets?
miohtama 5y ago
> The services (here: web fonts) could be supplied another way, so exposing the user's IP to google is not strictly necessary, from a technical POV. Because an IP address needed to receive a download. This kind of decision means that any hot linking of static media assets is now in hot waters. A sensible judge would say IP address is not PII but a prerequisite to use Internet in the first place. Like a license plate on car e.g. other broken analogue of tracking. Like a power socket. However the definition of PII in Europe is overly capturing (saying this as an European.)
- valzam 5y ago
  The problem of course is that IP addresses can totally be used by Google to build up a profile of your browsing behaviour across the whole web. Even if typical end User ip4 addresses change quite a lot due to ISP NATs I imagine it's still very valuable information. Obv with ipV6 and static IPs for everyone it becomes a privacy nightmare
- vanviegen 5y ago
  I agree that license plates make an apt comparison. How would you feel if private companies set up plate readers at just about every parking area everywhere? Like with IPs, they wouldn't be able to identify unique individuals with 100% certainty (as both IPs and cars may be shared), but they'd get pretty close. Certainly when it can be combined with other data. So yeah, to me it makes sense that IPs are personal data.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
This seems logical and reasonable to me, though it seems others are surprised/appalled. What would a technical solution that respects privacy look like? The website making the call to Google in the background (minus user details) and forwarding the response onward? Why isn't it done that way, it feels like it's the more obvious solution if you're not trying to track users. Early internet was very wary of 'hotlinking' because it costs money to serve things, people used to try to offload hosting costs to others. Now it seems people take that on willing with the expectation to make enough money to cover it. Is it just scale, or is it the user info that makes these services viable? Early Google used to use the argument that them making the web better was profitable, because more people using the web meant more money for them. Does that still apply? Would they still provide Google Fonts if they were legally bound to not use any user information they recieved?
- tgv 5y ago
  > What would a technical solution that respects privacy look like? In case of fonts: hosting it on your domain.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Google Fonts actually provides a couple of extra services, which can't be replicated just by 'hosting' the files. Not as relevant now, but in the past a big feature was serving the smallest font file to the user based on the browser version they had. Nowadays, the ability to use a Unicode aware font without sending the whole thing to every user is another feature they offer. Both feel like things that browser improvements could take care of themselves eventually though and in the meantime libraries running locally could handle. (For similar services, licencing plays a part, as you may be paying for the font per view or something like that, but that Doesn't apply for Google Fonts)
- Scarblac 5y ago
  A main selling point of using CDNs for commonly used assets (like Google fonts) is that lots of websites use the same URL, so the browser is likely to have the asset in cache already from a previous use on another site. Makes the site faster and uses less bandwidth. I don't think there is a solution right now. Maybe browsers can stop sending these headers to well known CDN domains by default.

lucian1900 5y ago

It’s “personal data” in GDPR. PII is the US concept and much narrower.

kevincox 5y ago
> The services (here: web fonts) could be supplied another way The problem here is that every service could be provided another way. It seems that the only actual hosting option that doesn't leak a user's IP to a thrird-party is first-party only over Tor. Do we demand that every website is built that way? It turns out that outsourcing actually has a lot of value. So where do we draw the line? Google Fonts apparently needs to be reimplemented first-party. What about Google Cloud CDN? What about an ISP that sees the user's IP in the packets?

miohtama 5y ago

> The services (here: web fonts) could be supplied another way, so exposing the user's IP to google is not strictly necessary, from a technical POV. Because an IP address needed to receive a download. This kind of decision means that any hot linking of static media assets is now in hot waters. A sensible judge would say IP address is not PII but a prerequisite to use Internet in the first place. Like a license plate on car e.g. other broken analogue of tracking. Like a power socket. However the definition of PII in Europe is overly capturing (saying this as an European.)

valzam 5y ago
The problem of course is that IP addresses can totally be used by Google to build up a profile of your browsing behaviour across the whole web. Even if typical end User ip4 addresses change quite a lot due to ISP NATs I imagine it's still very valuable information. Obv with ipV6 and static IPs for everyone it becomes a privacy nightmare
vanviegen 5y ago
I agree that license plates make an apt comparison. How would you feel if private companies set up plate readers at just about every parking area everywhere? Like with IPs, they wouldn't be able to identify unique individuals with 100% certainty (as both IPs and cars may be shared), but they'd get pretty close. Certainly when it can be combined with other data. So yeah, to me it makes sense that IPs are personal data.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

This seems logical and reasonable to me, though it seems others are surprised/appalled. What would a technical solution that respects privacy look like? The website making the call to Google in the background (minus user details) and forwarding the response onward? Why isn't it done that way, it feels like it's the more obvious solution if you're not trying to track users. Early internet was very wary of 'hotlinking' because it costs money to serve things, people used to try to offload hosting costs to others. Now it seems people take that on willing with the expectation to make enough money to cover it. Is it just scale, or is it the user info that makes these services viable? Early Google used to use the argument that them making the web better was profitable, because more people using the web meant more money for them. Does that still apply? Would they still provide Google Fonts if they were legally bound to not use any user information they recieved?

tgv 5y ago
> What would a technical solution that respects privacy look like? In case of fonts: hosting it on your domain.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Google Fonts actually provides a couple of extra services, which can't be replicated just by 'hosting' the files. Not as relevant now, but in the past a big feature was serving the smallest font file to the user based on the browser version they had. Nowadays, the ability to use a Unicode aware font without sending the whole thing to every user is another feature they offer. Both feel like things that browser improvements could take care of themselves eventually though and in the meantime libraries running locally could handle. (For similar services, licencing plays a part, as you may be paying for the font per view or something like that, but that Doesn't apply for Google Fonts)
Scarblac 5y ago
A main selling point of using CDNs for commonly used assets (like Google fonts) is that lots of websites use the same URL, so the browser is likely to have the asset in cache already from a previous use on another site. Makes the site faster and uses less bandwidth. I don't think there is a solution right now. Maybe browsers can stop sending these headers to well known CDN domains by default.