5 ms·

JSDeliver apparently hired a law firm to specifically advise on their situation and apparently the conclusion was it is still safe to use. More detail: https://

JSDeliver apparently hired a law firm to specifically advise on their situation and apparently the conclusion was it is still safe to use. More detail: https://www.jsdelivr.com/blog/how-the-german-courts-ruling-on-google-fonts-affects-jsdelivr-and-why-it-is-safe-to-use/ https://www.jsdelivr.com/blog/how-the-german-courts-ruling-o... Additional edit. If jsdelivr is illegal in Germany, it’s going to come as quite a surprise to many prominent sites: https://trends.builtwith.com/websitelist/jsDelivr/Germany https://trends.builtwith.com/websitelist/jsDelivr/Germany I know nothing more than I’ve found with a few minutes of web searching, but what I have found makes me skeptical of the OPs conclusions.

fariszr 3y ago
Huh, that didn't show up in my searches at all. Legalweb, one of the sources i referenced, doesn't seem to agree, and is recommending removing JSdelivr completely.
justeleblanc 3y ago
Your first link is an obvious PR piece to stave off customers' panic.
- 3D30497420 3y ago
  I am far from someone who can evaluate the legal questions here. However, two notes: - Legalweb, which OP references, sells services for GDPR compliance. While that may make them familiar with these rules, I wouldn't view them as an impartial perspective. - The jsdelivr post quotes actual attorneys. While they are certainly not impartial, I’d feel a bit more confident with their interpretation given that the firm is actually named. I could not find anything on Legalweb on who’s actually behind it, though I did see this quote: ”As a software manufacturer, we are not allowed to offer individual legal advice.” If someone can find a more independent interpretation, that would probably be ideal.
  - benatkin 3y ago
    It doesn't seem like there's any reason to be suspicious about Legalweb. The attorneys in jsDelivr's post can be lifted up without putting Legalweb down. There isn't much said editorially in the jsDelivr post. They didn't use a blockquote but it appears to be quoted until the last paragraph where it says "In conclusion". There are no editorial assertions in the intro. The conclusion appears not to match up with what the attorneys say. What the attorney says is that jsDelivr, the service, is safe. It doesn't say that about sites that use it. I agree with both the article and with jsDelivr's posts except the conclusion. jsDelivr will not be shut down just because of this ruling, but site owners may want to stop using it. Here's the conclusion: > In conclusion, the ruling that has been so controversial recently does not seem to fully address the factual and technical circumstances of how jsDelivr works, and at this point as a single ruling should not lead to any real concerns about using CDN's services. The arguments for extending to other online services a single ruling strongly emphasizing Google's failure to adequately protect personal data are insufficient and lack substance. "should not lead to any real concerns" doesn't inspire confidence
hugi 3y ago
Even if this PR statement was correct, do we really need legislation to know leaking user data to third parties/CDNs is unethical and generally a bad idea?
- tantalor 3y ago
  Who is saying that?

fariszr 3y ago

Huh, that didn't show up in my searches at all. Legalweb, one of the sources i referenced, doesn't seem to agree, and is recommending removing JSdelivr completely.

justeleblanc 3y ago

Your first link is an obvious PR piece to stave off customers' panic.

3D30497420 3y ago
I am far from someone who can evaluate the legal questions here. However, two notes: - Legalweb, which OP references, sells services for GDPR compliance. While that may make them familiar with these rules, I wouldn't view them as an impartial perspective. - The jsdelivr post quotes actual attorneys. While they are certainly not impartial, I’d feel a bit more confident with their interpretation given that the firm is actually named. I could not find anything on Legalweb on who’s actually behind it, though I did see this quote: ”As a software manufacturer, we are not allowed to offer individual legal advice.” If someone can find a more independent interpretation, that would probably be ideal.
- benatkin 3y ago
  It doesn't seem like there's any reason to be suspicious about Legalweb. The attorneys in jsDelivr's post can be lifted up without putting Legalweb down. There isn't much said editorially in the jsDelivr post. They didn't use a blockquote but it appears to be quoted until the last paragraph where it says "In conclusion". There are no editorial assertions in the intro. The conclusion appears not to match up with what the attorneys say. What the attorney says is that jsDelivr, the service, is safe. It doesn't say that about sites that use it. I agree with both the article and with jsDelivr's posts except the conclusion. jsDelivr will not be shut down just because of this ruling, but site owners may want to stop using it. Here's the conclusion: > In conclusion, the ruling that has been so controversial recently does not seem to fully address the factual and technical circumstances of how jsDelivr works, and at this point as a single ruling should not lead to any real concerns about using CDN's services. The arguments for extending to other online services a single ruling strongly emphasizing Google's failure to adequately protect personal data are insufficient and lack substance. "should not lead to any real concerns" doesn't inspire confidence

hugi 3y ago

Even if this PR statement was correct, do we really need legislation to know leaking user data to third parties/CDNs is unethical and generally a bad idea?

tantalor 3y ago
Who is saying that?