7 ms·

Look and learn from Yubico, they don’t show any YouTube embedded videos until you agree to functional cookies: https://www.yubico.com/?lang=sv https://www.yubi

Look and learn from Yubico, they don’t show any YouTube embedded videos until you agree to functional cookies: https://www.yubico.com/?lang=sv https://www.yubico.com/?lang=sv

robin_reala 5y ago
There’s an easier way than that: embed from youtube-nocookie.com. Of course that doesn’t necessarily help with the Munich ruling…
- capableweb 5y ago
  IP information will still be sent to Google, and a notice would have to put up before. Easiest way to deal with this is to self-host the videos. Most people over-estimate how popular their websites are, and for the ones who don't, getting a dedicated instance with unmetered bandwidth is trivial to get and setup for video-hosting.
  - _0w8t 5y ago
    Unmetered is often means 1 Gbit. With 4K video that means less than 100 streams. It may work, but the moment the video is shared among friends the site can be in trouble. Plus YouTube handles all re-encoding and adjust the quality based on the speed and device. It is possible to do it with open-source components, but it requires a server farm and just not feasible using single cheap private server or VPS.
    - crtasm 5y ago
      If you're hosting a handful of videos a single server will be fine to encode and serve them.
    - account42 5y ago
      > and adjust the quality based on the speed and device. Now if only browsers would implement native HLS and/or DASH support then every site could have this without having to package a bunch of JS with different quirks of reach site. Of course, it is not really in Google's interest to help YouTube competitors so this is unlikely to happen for Chrome.
  - Merovius 5y ago
    > Easiest way to deal with this is to self-host the videos. For most videos, this would be a copyright violation. i.e. there are now two laws which prevent reasonable technological solutions, making it harder for most people to host and produce content - favoring the already heavily advantaged big companies.
    - salawat 5y ago
      Good. It's about time we took a hard damn look at the ludicrous mockery of common sense that copyright has made of things. Maybe people will start to appreciate the freedom to create once they realize that $industry has made it nogh impossible to do anything without getting sued. The solution to bad law is not to ignore it, it's to follow it to the letter, every time. Only then will people sit up take notice, and weigh the tradeoffs. In particular, we've let industry run away with far too much of the public's right to do things.
  - p49k 5y ago
    It is not in any way trivial to self-host video these days. In the past when video was a novelty and no one had any real expectation of performance or quality, it didn’t matter much because expectations were low. But so much work has been done since on reliability/performance/network efficiency and very few products can provide that. Without that work, people will think your player is broken, you will waste mobile traffic, etc. Even Reddit can’t get it right and they are a top 10 website.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
yayr 5y ago
This case is about IP address exposure, not cookies. This would still happen. So everyone showing youtube videos would be affected unless users also start agreeing to IP exposure… this could probably be avoided by extending the sites terms.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  > So everyone showing youtube videos would be affected unless users also start agreeing to IP exposure Yes, and that's a good thing! A web page should only communicate with the server i've reached, there should be zero third-party involved unless i explicitly consent. That for example <img> tag can use an arbitrary URL is explained by the fact that back in the day storage/bandwidth was expensive. The same is true for video to this day, but i guess it's good that heavy-to-load content is click-to-play.
  - nkmnz 5y ago
    Are you sure about the „explicitly“ part? I think it in certain cases, implicit consent should be enough, e.g. when a payment processor is contacted from a website. Even if you were running your own payment gateway, the user of your shop should be aware that the website will have to share information with their bank or credit card company. I think sharing data with third parties should not be easier than offline, but also not harder. Or do you sign a consent form each time you swipe your CC?
    - Xylakant 5y ago
      The GDPR does not require consent for everything. It allows processing data that’s required to provide the desired functionality and payment processors would be covered (IANAL, to take with a grain of salt) You’d still need to mention that in the pages privacy policy, but other than that you should be fine, as long as you have the proper paperwork in place (DPA,…) and the payment processor is themselves GDPR compliant.
      - nkmnz 5y ago

Look and learn from Yubico, they don’t show any YouTube embedded videos until you agree to functional cookies: https://www.yubico.com/?lang=sv https://www.yubico.com/?lang=sv

robin_reala 5y ago

There’s an easier way than that: embed from youtube-nocookie.com. Of course that doesn’t necessarily help with the Munich ruling…

capableweb 5y ago
IP information will still be sent to Google, and a notice would have to put up before. Easiest way to deal with this is to self-host the videos. Most people over-estimate how popular their websites are, and for the ones who don't, getting a dedicated instance with unmetered bandwidth is trivial to get and setup for video-hosting.
- _0w8t 5y ago
  Unmetered is often means 1 Gbit. With 4K video that means less than 100 streams. It may work, but the moment the video is shared among friends the site can be in trouble. Plus YouTube handles all re-encoding and adjust the quality based on the speed and device. It is possible to do it with open-source components, but it requires a server farm and just not feasible using single cheap private server or VPS.
  - crtasm 5y ago
    If you're hosting a handful of videos a single server will be fine to encode and serve them.
  - account42 5y ago
    > and adjust the quality based on the speed and device. Now if only browsers would implement native HLS and/or DASH support then every site could have this without having to package a bunch of JS with different quirks of reach site. Of course, it is not really in Google's interest to help YouTube competitors so this is unlikely to happen for Chrome.
- Merovius 5y ago
  > Easiest way to deal with this is to self-host the videos. For most videos, this would be a copyright violation. i.e. there are now two laws which prevent reasonable technological solutions, making it harder for most people to host and produce content - favoring the already heavily advantaged big companies.
  - salawat 5y ago
    Good. It's about time we took a hard damn look at the ludicrous mockery of common sense that copyright has made of things. Maybe people will start to appreciate the freedom to create once they realize that $industry has made it nogh impossible to do anything without getting sued. The solution to bad law is not to ignore it, it's to follow it to the letter, every time. Only then will people sit up take notice, and weigh the tradeoffs. In particular, we've let industry run away with far too much of the public's right to do things.
- p49k 5y ago
  It is not in any way trivial to self-host video these days. In the past when video was a novelty and no one had any real expectation of performance or quality, it didn’t matter much because expectations were low. But so much work has been done since on reliability/performance/network efficiency and very few products can provide that. Without that work, people will think your player is broken, you will waste mobile traffic, etc. Even Reddit can’t get it right and they are a top 10 website.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

yayr 5y ago

This case is about IP address exposure, not cookies. This would still happen. So everyone showing youtube videos would be affected unless users also start agreeing to IP exposure… this could probably be avoided by extending the sites terms.

southerntofu 5y ago
> So everyone showing youtube videos would be affected unless users also start agreeing to IP exposure Yes, and that's a good thing! A web page should only communicate with the server i've reached, there should be zero third-party involved unless i explicitly consent. That for example <img> tag can use an arbitrary URL is explained by the fact that back in the day storage/bandwidth was expensive. The same is true for video to this day, but i guess it's good that heavy-to-load content is click-to-play.
- nkmnz 5y ago
  Are you sure about the „explicitly“ part? I think it in certain cases, implicit consent should be enough, e.g. when a payment processor is contacted from a website. Even if you were running your own payment gateway, the user of your shop should be aware that the website will have to share information with their bank or credit card company. I think sharing data with third parties should not be easier than offline, but also not harder. Or do you sign a consent form each time you swipe your CC?
  - Xylakant 5y ago
    The GDPR does not require consent for everything. It allows processing data that’s required to provide the desired functionality and payment processors would be covered (IANAL, to take with a grain of salt) You’d still need to mention that in the pages privacy policy, but other than that you should be fine, as long as you have the proper paperwork in place (DPA,…) and the payment processor is themselves GDPR compliant.
    - nkmnz 5y ago