News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by brtkdotse on Sunday January 30, 2022 @06:11AM (#30135919)
Look and learn from Yubico, they don’t show any YouTube embedded videos until you agree to functional cookies:

https://www.yubico.com/?lang=sv

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by yayr on Sunday January 30, 2022 @07:11AM (#30136423)
This case is about IP address exposure, not cookies. This would still happen. So everyone showing youtube videos would be affected unless users also start agreeing to IP exposure… this could probably be avoided by extending the sites terms.
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by Xylakant on Sunday January 30, 2022 @08:30AM (#30137014)
I see quite a few web pages in Germany that do not load JavaScript or any other content from YouTube,Twitter, Facebook until you explicitly opt in. Basically, the content is replaced by a placeholder saying “click here to load external content from.” - it’s technically not very hard to do so, and I quite like it. I don’t need to be tracked by any of those entities everywhere I go. Tracking and creating profiles is one of the large problems of Facebook like buttons and similar.

> this could probably be avoided by extending the sites terms.

Reading the judgement, I don’t think so. Consent is required before exposing the IP address and is must be explicitly given. Terms can help in cases where there is a technical requirement, for example “if you want to watch this embedded video, you must consent to this”, but they won’t save you when you just embed.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by marcus_cemes on Sunday January 30, 2022 @09:03AM (#30137271)
> it’s technically not very hard to do so, and I quite like it

For the average user, it's yet another thing to click without thinking, just to be able to visit a page.

> Consent is required before exposing the IP address and is must be explicitly given

There's the crux of the problem, it's difficult to know what to consent for without first displaying the website, so you implicitly give consent for "just the bare minimum", until you accept the rest. This sounds great, but is both an absolute nightmare for website developers (it's not very easy to do, with how the internet was designed, inline scripts, fonts, CDN stylesheets) and for "most" end-users who just expect good defaults and don't want to sign a consent form every time they visit a website.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by Xylakant on Sunday January 30, 2022 @09:35AM (#30137517)
> > it’s technically not very hard to do so, and I quite like it

> For the average user, it's yet another thing to click without thinking, just to be able to visit a page.

And yet, they’re still protected: They’ll click on the video when they want to watch the video, load the like button when they want to like, the tweet button when they want to tweet. And all the other times when they visit a website that offers any of this functionality, no data is transmitted to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter.

> This sounds great, but is both an absolute nightmare for website developers (it's not very easy to do, with how the internet was designed, inline scripts, fonts, CDN stylesheets

There is no need to ask for consent for every Stylesheet you load from a CDN. You’re allowed to use cloudflare, cloudfront, fastly,… - they’ll all provide the required DPA that allows you to use them without consent. You need to be careful when it comes to things like like-buttons etc. that get loaded from places that use them to create user profiles for non-consenting users. Yes, that’s hard. But the culprits are the entities that siphon up every bit of data. Direct your ire there.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by thirdsun on Monday January 31, 2022 @03:01AM (#30145636)
> There is no need to ask for consent for every Stylesheet you load from a CDN. You’re allowed to use cloudflare, cloudfront, fastly,… - they’ll all provide the required DPA that allows you to use them without consent.

And Google doesn't? (Honest questions)

On first look serving a font from Google and a stylesheet from Cloudflare seem very, very similar things.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by Xylakant on Monday January 31, 2022 @04:40AM (#30146226)
The primary difference is that you usually have a contract with cloudflare that they host and serve your data on your behalf. A DPA would usually be part of the contract. Cloudflare also doesn’t mine the IP addresses that they gather as part of their operations to build advertising profiles.

AFAIK google fonts does not require any contract. Google could certainly offer a contract, a DPA, etc., assert that they are subject to the GDPR and waive processing of the data they gather from operating google fonts as a service.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by still_grokking on Sunday January 30, 2022 @04:07PM (#30141109)
The web isn't "the internet"!

Also the late web was designed by guess who: Yes, the ad-spyware companies…

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by Kim_Bruning on Sunday January 30, 2022 @09:32AM (#30137497)
I think these are the wrong solutions. What they're trying to do is to desperately hold on to doing "business as usual". Just now with a CYA fig leaf, and do I detect a hint of possibly a dash of malicious compliance?

What the EU actually wants to accomplish is to set a standard where people do business in a different (safer/higher quality/more ethical) way[1]; which many believe is both better for consumers and for business.

I wouldn't be surprised if a next round of regulations were to explicitly target (actual or perceived) malicious compliance.

My recommendation would be to find other ways of achieving your technical/advertising objectives that minimize the touching of peoples PII.

[1] This is not unusual, the EU originated as the European Economic [Community/Union], and the regulating of safety, quality and ethics standards between businesses and trading countries has been in their bailiwick for a long time (as behooves a trade treaty organization). Not all kinds of regulation are bad for commerce. This kind promotes fair competition and interoperability, while preventing races to the bottom and tragedies of the commons.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by esyir on Sunday January 30, 2022 @11:22AM (#30138472)
Strong disagree. This is more to me like Germany having jack all of a tech sector and trying their hardest to drag the rest of the world to their level.
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by Kim_Bruning on Sunday January 30, 2022 @12:17PM (#30138950)
This is a policy that is EU wide.

Why single out Germany? Do you have experience doing business there?

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by bushbaba on Sunday January 30, 2022 @12:07PM (#30138858)
Sounds like ipv8 is needed to address this. :D
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by yayr on Sunday January 30, 2022 @01:11PM (#30139515)
:-D something like zkIP (zero knowledge internet protocol)
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by still_grokking on Sunday January 30, 2022 @04:03PM (#30141057)
You mean we should all switch to Tor?

When everybody would use it, and ISPs would sell access, that could help the users to regain control over their data, and make privacy on the internet finally first class.

I welcome this idea.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by baash05 on Monday January 31, 2022 @04:52AM (#30146316)
Sadly cloud flare blocks TOR, most of the time.
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by southerntofu on Sunday January 30, 2022 @08:10AM (#30136862)
> So everyone showing youtube videos would be affected unless users also start agreeing to IP exposure

Yes, and that's a good thing! A web page should only communicate with the server i've reached, there should be zero third-party involved unless i explicitly consent.

That for example <img> tag can use an arbitrary URL is explained by the fact that back in the day storage/bandwidth was expensive. The same is true for video to this day, but i guess it's good that heavy-to-load content is click-to-play.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by nkmnz on Sunday January 30, 2022 @12:09PM (#30138878)
Are you sure about the „explicitly“ part? I think it in certain cases, implicit consent should be enough, e.g. when a payment processor is contacted from a website. Even if you were running your own payment gateway, the user of your shop should be aware that the website will have to share information with their bank or credit card company. I think sharing data with third parties should not be easier than offline, but also not harder. Or do you sign a consent form each time you swipe your CC?
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by southerntofu on Monday January 31, 2022 @06:22PM (#30156263)
You are correct. However me simply visiting a homepage (service) does not require communicating my data to third parties, and doing so is not in the legitimate interest of any of the first parties involved. In this case it would fall under the obligation of explicit content.
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by Xylakant on Sunday January 30, 2022 @12:22PM (#30139009)
The GDPR does not require consent for everything. It allows processing data that’s required to provide the desired functionality and payment processors would be covered (IANAL, to take with a grain of salt) You’d still need to mention that in the pages privacy policy, but other than that you should be fine, as long as you have the proper paperwork in place (DPA,…) and the payment processor is themselves GDPR compliant.
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by nkmnz on Sunday January 30, 2022 @01:03PM (#30139443)
I know, but I was referring to GGP call for explicit consent:

> there should be zero third-party involved unless i explicitly consent.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by Xylakant on Sunday January 30, 2022 @01:20PM (#30139609)
My position on that is that clicking on “pay via X” constitutes consent.
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by baash05 on Monday January 31, 2022 @04:57AM (#30146352)
I find that hard to understand. What server have you reached? Many sites are designed to be hosted by many servers at the same time. Sites hosted on Amazon are moved around depending on load and your location. Often you'll get part of the site from server X other bits from server Y.. images and css from an asset server and api data from one of many app servers.
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by southerntofu on Saturday February 05, 2022 @06:33AM (#30220129)
You are correct. I just don't think that's a reasonable state of affairs. If that was part of a p2p model (eg. torrent/IPFS) it could be considered a reasonable tradeoff to allow for more eco-friendly (shorter routes, no need for high-powered servers) retrieval scheme.

Hyperlinks are the foundation of the web. However, when we started loading resources (eg. images) from third parties due to high bandwidth/disk cost, we opened a Pandora's box which i believe does more harm than good.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by robin_reala on Sunday January 30, 2022 @06:21AM (#30136007)
There’s an easier way than that: embed from youtube-nocookie.com. Of course that doesn’t necessarily help with the Munich ruling…
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by capableweb on Sunday January 30, 2022 @06:33AM (#30136089)
IP information will still be sent to Google, and a notice would have to put up before.

Easiest way to deal with this is to self-host the videos. Most people over-estimate how popular their websites are, and for the ones who don't, getting a dedicated instance with unmetered bandwidth is trivial to get and setup for video-hosting.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by p49k on Sunday January 30, 2022 @09:36AM (#30137523)
It is not in any way trivial to self-host video these days.

In the past when video was a novelty and no one had any real expectation of performance or quality, it didn’t matter much because expectations were low.

But so much work has been done since on reliability/performance/network efficiency and very few products can provide that. Without that work, people will think your player is broken, you will waste mobile traffic, etc. Even Reddit can’t get it right and they are a top 10 website.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by fpoling on Sunday January 30, 2022 @07:11AM (#30136422)
Unmetered is often means 1 Gbit. With 4K video that means less than 100 streams. It may work, but the moment the video is shared among friends the site can be in trouble.

Plus YouTube handles all re-encoding and adjust the quality based on the speed and device.

It is possible to do it with open-source components, but it requires a server farm and just not feasible using single cheap private server or VPS.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by account42 on Monday January 31, 2022 @05:36AM (#30146588)
> and adjust the quality based on the speed and device.

Now if only browsers would implement native HLS and/or DASH support then every site could have this without having to package a bunch of JS with different quirks of reach site.

Of course, it is not really in Google's interest to help YouTube competitors so this is unlikely to happen for Chrome.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by crtasm on Sunday January 30, 2022 @01:06PM (#30139469)
If you're hosting a handful of videos a single server will be fine to encode and serve them.
Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by Merovius on Sunday January 30, 2022 @08:21AM (#30136949)
> Easiest way to deal with this is to self-host the videos.

For most videos, this would be a copyright violation. i.e. there are now two laws which prevent reasonable technological solutions, making it harder for most people to host and produce content - favoring the already heavily advantaged big companies.

Re:GDPR penalty for passing on of IP address to Google by us... by salawat on Monday January 31, 2022 @06:23PM (#30156280)
Good. It's about time we took a hard damn look at the ludicrous mockery of common sense that copyright has made of things. Maybe people will start to appreciate the freedom to create once they realize that $industry has made it nogh impossible to do anything without getting sued.

The solution to bad law is not to ignore it, it's to follow it to the letter, every time. Only then will people sit up take notice, and weigh the tradeoffs. In particular, we've let industry run away with far too much of the public's right to do things.