4 ms·

The end result is that the fact that you visited this website is passed to Google, and this can then be used for advertising purposes.

by Luc 5y ago

leobg 5y ago
This is true. But the request containing that information is being sent by your own computer. It’s bit a “doing” of the website owner.
- brazzy 5y ago
  It really depends. If the website links to a URL that is the same for everyone on every website which uses that font, then without a referrer header (which is up to the browser to send) there is not much tracking info. But if the website uses a URL that is unique for that site, or even for each user, that is absolutely something I'd hold the website owner responsible for.
  - leobg 5y ago
    Of course. Good point. If an individualized URL would be used, it would be another story. Though I don’t think that Google Fonts URLs contain individualized parameters by default that disclose either the user’s IP address or the site visited. The ruling also does not mention that this is what happened here. All the site user did, from what I can see, is embed a Google Font. Had the site owner put an automatic JavaScript redirect to Google on his page, he’d be just as liable, according to the logic of this ruling.
- yonixw 5y ago
  The initiator as seen in F12 is the site HTML\CSS... not the browser.
jstummbillig 5y ago
> and this can then be used for advertising purposes. Can it? Is this within the range what Google is allowed to do in the EU right now? Because, if that is the case and we also wanted to stop that, wouldn't it be a lot more reasonable to just... forbid Google from doing that, instead of slapping every confused wordpress hack in the EU with a fine?
- arlcode 5y ago
  Google cannot escape the US government agencies (CLOUD act) etc. It doesn't matter what the promise. They could sell their software stack to an independent European partner over whom they don't have any control and who doesn't transmit data back to the US.
  - jstummbillig 5y ago
    If that was true, how does Google work within China?
    - debugnik 5y ago
      IIRC foreign companies must form a joint venture with a Chinese one that would "own" the data and processing.
    - arlcode 5y ago
      It mostly doesn't?
    - Flocular 5y ago
      By sharing data until public relations make change necessary https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/11/22668734/google-user-data-hong-kong-authorities-china https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/11/22668734/google-user-data...
      - jstummbillig 5y ago
        If China can mandate Google to do something like that and having Google submit to it, effectively escaping US jurisdiction for this part of the world, why wouldn't it work in the EU applied to a completely different set of goals?
        Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
        US jurisdiction doesn't even protect its own citizens against their government requesting data from google about them, why would it protect those of Hong Kong from their ... oh wait i get it

The end result is that the fact that you visited this website is passed to Google, and this can then be used for advertising purposes.

by Luc 5y ago

The end result is that the fact that you visited this website is passed to Google, and this can then be used for advertising purposes.

leobg 5y ago

This is true. But the request containing that information is being sent by your own computer. It’s bit a “doing” of the website owner.

brazzy 5y ago
It really depends. If the website links to a URL that is the same for everyone on every website which uses that font, then without a referrer header (which is up to the browser to send) there is not much tracking info. But if the website uses a URL that is unique for that site, or even for each user, that is absolutely something I'd hold the website owner responsible for.
- leobg 5y ago
  Of course. Good point. If an individualized URL would be used, it would be another story. Though I don’t think that Google Fonts URLs contain individualized parameters by default that disclose either the user’s IP address or the site visited. The ruling also does not mention that this is what happened here. All the site user did, from what I can see, is embed a Google Font. Had the site owner put an automatic JavaScript redirect to Google on his page, he’d be just as liable, according to the logic of this ruling.
yonixw 5y ago
The initiator as seen in F12 is the site HTML\CSS... not the browser.

jstummbillig 5y ago

> and this can then be used for advertising purposes. Can it? Is this within the range what Google is allowed to do in the EU right now? Because, if that is the case and we also wanted to stop that, wouldn't it be a lot more reasonable to just... forbid Google from doing that, instead of slapping every confused wordpress hack in the EU with a fine?

arlcode 5y ago
Google cannot escape the US government agencies (CLOUD act) etc. It doesn't matter what the promise. They could sell their software stack to an independent European partner over whom they don't have any control and who doesn't transmit data back to the US.
- jstummbillig 5y ago
  If that was true, how does Google work within China?
  - debugnik 5y ago
    IIRC foreign companies must form a joint venture with a Chinese one that would "own" the data and processing.
  - arlcode 5y ago
    It mostly doesn't?
  - Flocular 5y ago
    By sharing data until public relations make change necessary https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/11/22668734/google-user-data-hong-kong-authorities-china https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/11/22668734/google-user-data...
    - jstummbillig 5y ago
      If China can mandate Google to do something like that and having Google submit to it, effectively escaping US jurisdiction for this part of the world, why wouldn't it work in the EU applied to a completely different set of goals?
      - Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
        US jurisdiction doesn't even protect its own citizens against their government requesting data from google about them, why would it protect those of Hong Kong from their ... oh wait i get it