3 ms·

>Maybe if everyone wasn't leaking my entire lifes history to 58 different adtech shitcompanies the EU wouldn't have needed to step in. But it's not "everyone"

>Maybe if everyone wasn't leaking my entire lifes history to 58 different adtech shitcompanies the EU wouldn't have needed to step in. But it's not "everyone" - it's you. Your computer sends out all the information that is requested from it. That's how the internet is built. Even when a website tries to use an external font it is still your browser that asks the font host for the font.

twojacobtwo 5y ago
A little too much blaming the victim vibe from this. "It's not the rapists who let you get raped! You let yourself get raped! Why didn't you have more personal security?" It seems you either missed the point of what the post was getting at, or you are being purposefully obtuse about it.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  Victim blaming? What's the point of your system being open and you are in control if you don't use that control to stop voluntarily sending data to websites you don't want. I agree that it would be nicer if websites slurped up less data. But to portray a lot of this stuff as the user being the victim is ridiculous. The users are the ones that voluntarily started using browsers made by an adtech companies. There are alternatives but they don't use them! And yet they complain that their data then ends up with the adtech company because their browser, that is under their control, sends it to the company.
  - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
    In case you didn't realise it's Google who controls the browser not the user.
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
This design is largely perpetrated by the adtech companies in question. Your reference to an external font is, of course, largely referring to Google Fonts. Nobody embedded externally-hosted fonts until adtech companies started pushing you to just add their convenient code that grabs the fonts from their servers direct, but it's insane we allow this. Of course, the web browser should do something about it... but the adtech company built that too. "That's how the internet is built" is an aggressively dismissive attitude, because there are specific companies building the Internet. Note that every new trash web standard is written by... oh, yeah, Google too. Sidebar: I block Google Fonts. You should too.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  Yes, but the ones at fault there are us. We choose to use the browser made by them.
kmeisthax 5y ago
So... the problem with that argument is that users do not choose whether or not to have fonts on their webpages. The web developer does that. No browser will, out-of-the-box, ask you "Hey, do you want to send your IP address and Referer to Google in order to see this website with the correct font?" or "Hey, do you want to run this untrustworthy, obfuscated, proprietary blob of Somebody Else's Code in a sandbox?". You just tell the browser "go to this website", and it dutifully does whatever the website says within the web sandbox. If this was a clickable link to Google, and the EU was saying that telling people to go to Google makes you a GDPR data exporter, then I'd be up in arms about this. But it's not. What we're talking about are subresource references, not anchor links. Those get loaded automatically without user control, and users do not get the ability to audit them by default. So it's reasonable to argue that subresource requests are "caused" by the developer of the website, not the user. Furthermore, this is how actual ad trackers work. It's very common for ad trackers to include a reference to either a script file or a 1x1 pixel GIF (the latter called a "tracking pixel"). This isn't a misinterpretation of GDPR, it's the heart of the issue. If we treat subresources the same as clicking a link, then GDPR is a hollow, toothless meme of a law.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  >No browser will, out-of-the-box, ask you "Hey, do you want to send your IP address and Referer to Google in order to see this website with the correct font?" Then make one that does. Or demand for one. But everybody wants to use Chrome and then they're surprised that their browser doesn't give them the control they want. The whole point is that Google gets your data because you send it to them. Your browser and computer are under your control. It's no wonder Apple thrives while taking away control from the user. Because when we do have control we just don't use it. >Those get loaded automatically without user control, and users do not get the ability to audit them by default. So it's reasonable to argue that subresource requests are "caused" by the developer of the website, not the user. It would only be reasonable to argue this if you think your computer/browser/os is not under your control. NoScript has been a thing for a long time. How many people actually use it?
  - kmeisthax 5y ago

twojacobtwo 5y ago

A little too much blaming the victim vibe from this. "It's not the rapists who let you get raped! You let yourself get raped! Why didn't you have more personal security?" It seems you either missed the point of what the post was getting at, or you are being purposefully obtuse about it.

Aerroon 5y ago
Victim blaming? What's the point of your system being open and you are in control if you don't use that control to stop voluntarily sending data to websites you don't want. I agree that it would be nicer if websites slurped up less data. But to portray a lot of this stuff as the user being the victim is ridiculous. The users are the ones that voluntarily started using browsers made by an adtech companies. There are alternatives but they don't use them! And yet they complain that their data then ends up with the adtech company because their browser, that is under their control, sends it to the company.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  In case you didn't realise it's Google who controls the browser not the user.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

This design is largely perpetrated by the adtech companies in question. Your reference to an external font is, of course, largely referring to Google Fonts. Nobody embedded externally-hosted fonts until adtech companies started pushing you to just add their convenient code that grabs the fonts from their servers direct, but it's insane we allow this. Of course, the web browser should do something about it... but the adtech company built that too. "That's how the internet is built" is an aggressively dismissive attitude, because there are specific companies building the Internet. Note that every new trash web standard is written by... oh, yeah, Google too. Sidebar: I block Google Fonts. You should too.

Aerroon 5y ago
Yes, but the ones at fault there are us. We choose to use the browser made by them.

kmeisthax 5y ago

So... the problem with that argument is that users do not choose whether or not to have fonts on their webpages. The web developer does that. No browser will, out-of-the-box, ask you "Hey, do you want to send your IP address and Referer to Google in order to see this website with the correct font?" or "Hey, do you want to run this untrustworthy, obfuscated, proprietary blob of Somebody Else's Code in a sandbox?". You just tell the browser "go to this website", and it dutifully does whatever the website says within the web sandbox. If this was a clickable link to Google, and the EU was saying that telling people to go to Google makes you a GDPR data exporter, then I'd be up in arms about this. But it's not. What we're talking about are subresource references, not anchor links. Those get loaded automatically without user control, and users do not get the ability to audit them by default. So it's reasonable to argue that subresource requests are "caused" by the developer of the website, not the user. Furthermore, this is how actual ad trackers work. It's very common for ad trackers to include a reference to either a script file or a 1x1 pixel GIF (the latter called a "tracking pixel"). This isn't a misinterpretation of GDPR, it's the heart of the issue. If we treat subresources the same as clicking a link, then GDPR is a hollow, toothless meme of a law.

Aerroon 5y ago
>No browser will, out-of-the-box, ask you "Hey, do you want to send your IP address and Referer to Google in order to see this website with the correct font?" Then make one that does. Or demand for one. But everybody wants to use Chrome and then they're surprised that their browser doesn't give them the control they want. The whole point is that Google gets your data because you send it to them. Your browser and computer are under your control. It's no wonder Apple thrives while taking away control from the user. Because when we do have control we just don't use it. >Those get loaded automatically without user control, and users do not get the ability to audit them by default. So it's reasonable to argue that subresource requests are "caused" by the developer of the website, not the user. It would only be reasonable to argue this if you think your computer/browser/os is not under your control. NoScript has been a thing for a long time. How many people actually use it?
- kmeisthax 5y ago