4 ms·

> the w3c standards define, that browsers execute the commands they receive from the server I'm no expert in the matter, but this seems a little convoluted to

> the w3c standards define, that browsers execute the commands they receive from the server I'm no expert in the matter, but this seems a little convoluted to me? To me, the server does not issue instructions, per se, it returns a declarative text/binary response that describes the sturcture of the website, it is then up to the browser, that the user installed and chooses to use and may configure (and possibly configure to leak their data, even if spec-adhering behaviour of rendering the webpage should not), to attempt to understand the document and retrieve any other resources that may assist displaying the content correctly. On the other hand, if one was to send CPU instructions back to the user, I guess it's also there choice to execute them...? Also, it's not possible to determine which resources are for display purposes (fonts), and which are for tracking purposes, the browser will blindly have to retrieve the resource, so websites have a certain responsibility to issue privacy-respecting "instructions". I'm trying to argue both sides here, I still believe that the user chooses voluntarily to use the browser, visit the webpage and therefore parse the document and initiate any subsequent requests that the document proposes, on the other hand, this is beyond most people, they just want to view a frickin' website, so perhaps the lives of web developers should be made harder to make the lives of the average Joe, who is not an IT expert, a little easier? The architecture of the web is inherently not privacy-respecting, in order to save bandwidth (and for sake of simplicity), we only send fragments and let the browser choose what else it needs, which can be tracked. It's like walking in a park. You choose to show your face to people, we've come to just accept the fact that by the laws of nature, we cannot prevent other people from seeing our face (unless you use a mask, but then you make them very uneasy), we leak data that others can remember and use to identify us later.

ryandrake 5y ago
Try making this argument with compiled code instead of HTML: "The company included the code to do $BAD_THING in the binary executable, but it was the user's choice to run it, and he could have easily modified the binary to ignore $BAD_THING, but didn't. Therefore, it was the user doing $BAD_THING, not the company." A lot of people in this discussion are splitting hairs here, trying to blame the user or the browser. The technical details of what a browser does are less important than the end effect: Fundamentally, the web developer added "stuff" to the HTML, knowing that this "stuff" will cause most browsers in the field to access these fonts on another computer. The fact that the end user could technically block it, doesn't change the developer's intent.
- marcus_cemes 5y ago
  Yeah, I guess this stands. But HTML is not executable. It has to be parsed, like words in a book, not chemicals in a tube. Who is liable, the person who creates the poison, or the book (encyclopedia) which describes the process (and therefore the person who wrote it/distributes it)? Again, I'm not saying what is right and wrong, but I think this issue is fundamentally much, much more complex than the court may have thought, and more importantly, may have repercussions on almost every website out there.
  - dsr_ 5y ago
    In your paradigm: shell, Python, Ruby and Java programs are not executable either, since they require interpreters before they become machine code. Java calls this bytecode and wants to run on a whole JVM, which is rather like a browser.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    > Yeah, I guess this stands. But HTML is not executable. It has to be parsed, like words in a book, not chemicals in a tube. Who is liable, the person who creates the poison, or the book (encyclopedia) which describes the process (and therefore the person who wrote it/distributes it)? I know as soon as you typed this, you probably thought "oh crap, what about Python?" so I won't go there. I think the major underlying thing here that makes developers uncomfortable with this court ruling is that the whole industry of software development has a chronic and pervasive problem with the idea of consent. I'm not saying individual software engineers don't know what consent means, but we constantly put out software that does things without giving the user informed consent and control, and resist all efforts to force us to ask for this consent. Imagine trying to use the Software Industry's idea of consent when dating: "Hey, Alice, do you want to go out on a date with me? I'll only accept the answers [Yes] or [Ask me again later]". Ridiculous! But software regularly does this! "Hey, Bob, I love you and I'm going to keep sending you text messages. Do you want [all my text messages] or [only essential text messages]?" Ridiculous, but look at the "consent" options when it comes to cookies. Not to be crass, but when software wants to get users to do something, they need to treat it as if the software is trying to get laid: You need to ask for, and receive, informed consent at every step of the way, at every new and different request. This is an uncomfortable idea to developers who are used to just commanding the code to do things.
arka2147483647 5y ago
I think you confuse user, the Human, and user, the Programming Idiom. User, the Human, is not going to be asked weather or not the browser should open every one of the possibly hundreds of references in a web page!! Now, user, the Programming Idiom, might be configured, programed, etc.. to behave differently, but the reality is that is that's not how the modern web works. If the browser is not configured to behave the way it comes from the box by Google, Microsoft or Apple, most pages will not work correctly. So I think your configuration/technical argument is purely theoretical. The court cannot expect the average user to understand do any of that.
- marcus_cemes 5y ago
  > User, the Human, is not going to be asked weather or not the browser should open every one of the possibly hundreds of references in a web page Exactly, because we strive for a balance of convienience with complexity. Most people wouldn't mind downloading a font from Google, they already use it directly anyway. This isn't how law works, as an engineer, I'm just trying to find some sanity in what to me seems like an insane court decision with possibly very big repercussions for the rest of the internet.
  - VonGallifrey 5y ago
    Just host the font yourself. What is the problem?
- bmn__ 5y ago
  The terminology for these concepts in common use is "user" and "user agent".
- rzzzt 5y ago
  But User, the Human has the means to command its User Agent, the Browser, to conveniently skip loading whatever they would not like to see, like fonts, executable scripts or ads.
ratww 5y ago
Your post basically amounts to blaming victims of malware and spyware. "Sure your honor, the victim died by carbon monoxide asphyxiation, but it was his choice to inhale the gas, even though it smells the same as normal air"
- marcus_cemes 5y ago
  I'm not trying to put any blame here, we can twist metaphors to support either side of the argument. I definitely think that websites have a huge responsibility in keeping the user safe, but this feels to me like an over-extension of GDPR that will make websites much more difficult to develop in the future for the layman without a team of layers. It's a font, there was no malicious intent.
  - ratww 5y ago
    But I am trying to put blame: people who wrote the malware/spyware code are to blame. Similarly to people who write website code that leaks user personal information. The choice to embed third-party code was made by them. It is nowhere near reasonable to ask a common user to protect themselves from such things: they might not have the technical expertise. They might not be using their own computer (library, etc). The browser doesn't provide enough tools for it and requires third-party solutions. Third-party solutions can either cost money (Little Snitch), additional hardware (Pi-Hole), are not available in all browsers (uBlock Origin due to its interface) or require technical knowledge (other ad-blockers that use lists).

ryandrake 5y ago

Try making this argument with compiled code instead of HTML: "The company included the code to do $BAD_THING in the binary executable, but it was the user's choice to run it, and he could have easily modified the binary to ignore $BAD_THING, but didn't. Therefore, it was the user doing $BAD_THING, not the company." A lot of people in this discussion are splitting hairs here, trying to blame the user or the browser. The technical details of what a browser does are less important than the end effect: Fundamentally, the web developer added "stuff" to the HTML, knowing that this "stuff" will cause most browsers in the field to access these fonts on another computer. The fact that the end user could technically block it, doesn't change the developer's intent.

marcus_cemes 5y ago
Yeah, I guess this stands. But HTML is not executable. It has to be parsed, like words in a book, not chemicals in a tube. Who is liable, the person who creates the poison, or the book (encyclopedia) which describes the process (and therefore the person who wrote it/distributes it)? Again, I'm not saying what is right and wrong, but I think this issue is fundamentally much, much more complex than the court may have thought, and more importantly, may have repercussions on almost every website out there.
- dsr_ 5y ago
  In your paradigm: shell, Python, Ruby and Java programs are not executable either, since they require interpreters before they become machine code. Java calls this bytecode and wants to run on a whole JVM, which is rather like a browser.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  > Yeah, I guess this stands. But HTML is not executable. It has to be parsed, like words in a book, not chemicals in a tube. Who is liable, the person who creates the poison, or the book (encyclopedia) which describes the process (and therefore the person who wrote it/distributes it)? I know as soon as you typed this, you probably thought "oh crap, what about Python?" so I won't go there. I think the major underlying thing here that makes developers uncomfortable with this court ruling is that the whole industry of software development has a chronic and pervasive problem with the idea of consent. I'm not saying individual software engineers don't know what consent means, but we constantly put out software that does things without giving the user informed consent and control, and resist all efforts to force us to ask for this consent. Imagine trying to use the Software Industry's idea of consent when dating: "Hey, Alice, do you want to go out on a date with me? I'll only accept the answers [Yes] or [Ask me again later]". Ridiculous! But software regularly does this! "Hey, Bob, I love you and I'm going to keep sending you text messages. Do you want [all my text messages] or [only essential text messages]?" Ridiculous, but look at the "consent" options when it comes to cookies. Not to be crass, but when software wants to get users to do something, they need to treat it as if the software is trying to get laid: You need to ask for, and receive, informed consent at every step of the way, at every new and different request. This is an uncomfortable idea to developers who are used to just commanding the code to do things.

arka2147483647 5y ago

I think you confuse user, the Human, and user, the Programming Idiom. User, the Human, is not going to be asked weather or not the browser should open every one of the possibly hundreds of references in a web page!! Now, user, the Programming Idiom, might be configured, programed, etc.. to behave differently, but the reality is that is that's not how the modern web works. If the browser is not configured to behave the way it comes from the box by Google, Microsoft or Apple, most pages will not work correctly. So I think your configuration/technical argument is purely theoretical. The court cannot expect the average user to understand do any of that.

marcus_cemes 5y ago
> User, the Human, is not going to be asked weather or not the browser should open every one of the possibly hundreds of references in a web page Exactly, because we strive for a balance of convienience with complexity. Most people wouldn't mind downloading a font from Google, they already use it directly anyway. This isn't how law works, as an engineer, I'm just trying to find some sanity in what to me seems like an insane court decision with possibly very big repercussions for the rest of the internet.
- VonGallifrey 5y ago
  Just host the font yourself. What is the problem?
bmn__ 5y ago
The terminology for these concepts in common use is "user" and "user agent".
rzzzt 5y ago
But User, the Human has the means to command its User Agent, the Browser, to conveniently skip loading whatever they would not like to see, like fonts, executable scripts or ads.

ratww 5y ago

Your post basically amounts to blaming victims of malware and spyware. "Sure your honor, the victim died by carbon monoxide asphyxiation, but it was his choice to inhale the gas, even though it smells the same as normal air"

marcus_cemes 5y ago
I'm not trying to put any blame here, we can twist metaphors to support either side of the argument. I definitely think that websites have a huge responsibility in keeping the user safe, but this feels to me like an over-extension of GDPR that will make websites much more difficult to develop in the future for the layman without a team of layers. It's a font, there was no malicious intent.
- ratww 5y ago
  But I am trying to put blame: people who wrote the malware/spyware code are to blame. Similarly to people who write website code that leaks user personal information. The choice to embed third-party code was made by them. It is nowhere near reasonable to ask a common user to protect themselves from such things: they might not have the technical expertise. They might not be using their own computer (library, etc). The browser doesn't provide enough tools for it and requires third-party solutions. Third-party solutions can either cost money (Little Snitch), additional hardware (Pi-Hole), are not available in all browsers (uBlock Origin due to its interface) or require technical knowledge (other ad-blockers that use lists).