4 ms·
Do you have a source that backs up your interpretation of the situation? IP addresses are "leaked" (I think that's a really shitty term in this context tbh) to
by jhugo 4y ago
Do you have a source that backs up your interpretation of the situation? IP addresses are "leaked" (I think that's a really shitty term in this context tbh) to every single thing you communicate with, or via, on the Internet, and most of those things are operated by third parties.
If "necessary" or "unavoidable" is the test, then it gets really murky — is it really necessary for your ISP to buy wholesale IP transit from another ISP when they could build out their own infra instead? It's entirely avoidable for them to peer at IXes for more economical / efficient routing — and those IXes have switches and routers operated by third parties which can see your traffic — so is it illegal for them to offload your traffic there as well?
- Jack5500 4y agoHi, yes there are several sources: https://www.golem.de/news/landgericht-muenchen-einbindung-von-google-fonts-ist-rechtswidrig-2202-162826.html https://www.golem.de/news/landgericht-muenchen-einbindung-vo... https://t3n.de/news/google-fonts-illegal-urteil-dsgvo-1447698/ https://t3n.de/news/google-fonts-illegal-urteil-dsgvo-144769... https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000138472819/datenschutzanwalt-fordert-in-massenbrief-190-euro-von-websitebetreibern-fuer-google https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000138472819/datenschutzan... All these sources lead back to this verdict: https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/lhm-20-01-2022-3-o-1749320/ https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/lhm-20-01-2022-3-o-1749320/