4 ms·

Surely you are not processing data in this case though? The client (software) determines whether to make a connection to fonts.google.com. Your website never pa

Surely you are not processing data in this case though? The client (software) determines whether to make a connection to fonts.google.com. Your website never passed the information to google.

q-big 4y ago
> Your website never passed the information to google. Your website is malware that contains code which makes the visitor's browser connect to Google's server.
c0balt 4y ago
No, that's not how it works. If the website (via js or tags) requests that something is called, than your software calls it and you're responsible. The client only runs your software, in this case, HTML & co. Though it arguably doesn't get enforced anyways, except for some big corps.
Grollicus 4y ago
That may be technically correct, but doesn't count in front of a judge. They generally don't care for implementation details but they care for the results. And the result is that you made your visitor talk to google.
- sdoering 4y ago
  Reading the relevant court decision actually showed enough technical understanding by the judge to make a balanced decision. The reasoning was that as it is so very easy to self host Google fonts and with caching as an argument gone there is actually not enough reason anymore to use the hosted version by Google and transmit PD to Google. Would the site have used a foundry that didn't offer self hosting the reasoning might have turned out differently if the site owner could have made a strong argument for using this specific font by this foundry. At least that was my reading but IANAL.
Filligree 4y ago
Judges do not tend to be impressed by technicalities. You're causing the information to be passed to google; the means by which that happens are largely irrelevant.
- gspr 4y ago
  And also, if the technical line of argument were found meaningful, it could also be used for absurdities: "no, your honor, my website didn't display copyrighted images without a license – it merely gave the visitors' browsers some instructions which they happened to interpret in a way that resulted in them causing some pixels on a screen to light up in a way that somewhat resembles the copyrighted images".
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Technical people often see law as a form of code, and the judge as a form of code executing computer, able to be tricked by literal interpretations. It doesn't often really work out that way.
    - gspr 4y ago
      Indeed. And even though I consider myself a technical person through and through, I wouldn't want the law to work like that. We, as humans, are not capable of specifying society's functioning at that precision. We need the fuzziness of humans in the loop.
      - giomasce 4y ago
        Neither would I. Though every now and then I wouldn't dislike to be bound to rules that I can evaluate in advance, without having to bet on what a judge's a posteriori interpretation will be.
        gspr 4y ago
        I agree. But other times I'd also very much dislike being bound by "code" that the democratically elected lawmakers agree is buggy (buggy compared to their and the electorate's intentions).
kahnclusions 4y ago
Your website instructed the client to connect to Google, so yes, you are responsible for this passing data to a third party. The user likely has no idea they contacted Google — it only happened because the code in your application executed it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Surely you are not processing data in this case though? The client (software) determines whether to make a connection to fonts.google.com. Your website never passed the information to google.

q-big 4y ago

> Your website never passed the information to google. Your website is malware that contains code which makes the visitor's browser connect to Google's server.

c0balt 4y ago

No, that's not how it works. If the website (via js or tags) requests that something is called, than your software calls it and you're responsible. The client only runs your software, in this case, HTML & co. Though it arguably doesn't get enforced anyways, except for some big corps.

Grollicus 4y ago

That may be technically correct, but doesn't count in front of a judge. They generally don't care for implementation details but they care for the results. And the result is that you made your visitor talk to google.

sdoering 4y ago
Reading the relevant court decision actually showed enough technical understanding by the judge to make a balanced decision. The reasoning was that as it is so very easy to self host Google fonts and with caching as an argument gone there is actually not enough reason anymore to use the hosted version by Google and transmit PD to Google. Would the site have used a foundry that didn't offer self hosting the reasoning might have turned out differently if the site owner could have made a strong argument for using this specific font by this foundry. At least that was my reading but IANAL.

Filligree 4y ago

Judges do not tend to be impressed by technicalities. You're causing the information to be passed to google; the means by which that happens are largely irrelevant.

gspr 4y ago
And also, if the technical line of argument were found meaningful, it could also be used for absurdities: "no, your honor, my website didn't display copyrighted images without a license – it merely gave the visitors' browsers some instructions which they happened to interpret in a way that resulted in them causing some pixels on a screen to light up in a way that somewhat resembles the copyrighted images".
- bombcar 4y ago
  Technical people often see law as a form of code, and the judge as a form of code executing computer, able to be tricked by literal interpretations. It doesn't often really work out that way.
  - gspr 4y ago
    Indeed. And even though I consider myself a technical person through and through, I wouldn't want the law to work like that. We, as humans, are not capable of specifying society's functioning at that precision. We need the fuzziness of humans in the loop.
    - giomasce 4y ago
      Neither would I. Though every now and then I wouldn't dislike to be bound to rules that I can evaluate in advance, without having to bet on what a judge's a posteriori interpretation will be.
      - gspr 4y ago
        I agree. But other times I'd also very much dislike being bound by "code" that the democratically elected lawmakers agree is buggy (buggy compared to their and the electorate's intentions).

kahnclusions 4y ago

Your website instructed the client to connect to Google, so yes, you are responsible for this passing data to a third party. The user likely has no idea they contacted Google — it only happened because the code in your application executed it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]