4 ms·
in the Google fonts CDN the court ruled that: it's irrelevant if the website or Google had the opportunity to link the IP address to the user. the mere possibil
by cowl 3y ago
in the Google fonts CDN the court ruled that: it's irrelevant if the website or Google had the opportunity to link the IP address to the user. the mere possibility of this is enough to consider it as protected PII.
- sirius87 3y agoQuestion is whether Google Fonts CDN/server was storing the IP address or not. Linking to a user is secondary. If a server does not log or store raw IPs in the first place, where's the fault?
- cowl 3y agoMy man you are arguing with an established case 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/ The wording that is irrelevant what Google does with the IP (just the theoretical possibility of misuse is enough) is in the case verdict.
- iudqnolq 3y agoPer Wikipedia Germany's legal system doesn't have the concept of binding precedent. (And even if it did in no country is the decision of a trial court binding precedent).