A lot of the discussion here revolves around the notion of IP addresses as personal information. However, even when a user can be identified through their IP address, this misses a crucial point, namely whether this particular piece of personal information can reasonably be considered private. I contend that it cannot. In order to make any use whatsoever of the internet, one's IP address must necessarily be shared with a number of actors other than the owner of the resource actually being requested. These might be hosting providers, DNS providers, core network operators, etc. That is simply how the internet works. Moreover, websites referencing content hosted elsewhere is and has always been commonplace. The expectation that websites be entirely self-contained is frankly absurd.
A separate issue is what someone might be able to do with your IP address. Feeding it into a larger data set to be used for ad targeting is certainly a possibility, one that doesn't even require identification of the user/account the address belongs to. A curtailing of such activities is something most people would likely welcome.
What this court decision, in my opinion, gets horribly wrong is the attribution of blame. A website operator is being held responsible for the potentially unwanted actions of a third party with whom they had no direct interaction. After all, it was the user's browser that initiated the connection to Google, not the defendant's server.
This whole thing has a strong whiff of the anti-Google (or is it anti-American) sentiment that has become fashionable among self-styled privacy activists, especially in Europe. In their view, it would seem, when they can't get to their designated Big Bad directly, the next best thing is to punish anyone who goes near it, consequences be damned. The phrase cutting off one's nose to spite one's face comes to mind.
More like World Wide Threat, should you dare allow Germans to access your site. A few more of these decisions, and we'll be looking at a "euronet" with no connections to the rest of the world.
That's what the cookie consent labyrinths are for. This ruling goes much further in that simply referencing externally hosted resources is now considered a violation. If websites can no longer link to each other, well, then it's not a web any more.
Even if they did have Elvis Presley in mind, I think that's perfectly OK. If it was, in some way, inspired by Elvis Presley, saying so should be allowed. Nobody is going to think the beer was created, or endorsed, by the King, nor does such a product exist with which this one might be confused.
I must admit, when I saw some bottles of that beer in a bar fridge, my first association was in fact Elvis Presley. That doesn't mean it should be banned.
There's no irony here. She needs to break encryption precisely because her party members are using it when discussing what to do with her. Plotting to oust your leader, that's terrorism right there.
Has someone called the pope? Feeding a thousand people with only three items, that's a Jesus level miracle right there.
If what you want is a dumb screen, look into large-format digital signage displays.
Next they'll be suing Ethiopia over the name of the capital city.
A lot of the discussion here revolves around the notion of IP addresses as personal information. However, even when a user can be identified through their IP address, this misses a crucial point, namely whether this particular piece of personal information can reasonably be considered private. I contend that it cannot. In order to make any use whatsoever of the internet, one's IP address must necessarily be shared with a number of actors other than the owner of the resource actually being requested. These might be hosting providers, DNS providers, core network operators, etc. That is simply how the internet works. Moreover, websites referencing content hosted elsewhere is and has always been commonplace. The expectation that websites be entirely self-contained is frankly absurd.
A separate issue is what someone might be able to do with your IP address. Feeding it into a larger data set to be used for ad targeting is certainly a possibility, one that doesn't even require identification of the user/account the address belongs to. A curtailing of such activities is something most people would likely welcome.
What this court decision, in my opinion, gets horribly wrong is the attribution of blame. A website operator is being held responsible for the potentially unwanted actions of a third party with whom they had no direct interaction. After all, it was the user's browser that initiated the connection to Google, not the defendant's server.
This whole thing has a strong whiff of the anti-Google (or is it anti-American) sentiment that has become fashionable among self-styled privacy activists, especially in Europe. In their view, it would seem, when they can't get to their designated Big Bad directly, the next best thing is to punish anyone who goes near it, consequences be damned. The phrase cutting off one's nose to spite one's face comes to mind.
Re: Re: Re:
More like World Wide Threat, should you dare allow Germans to access your site. A few more of these decisions, and we'll be looking at a "euronet" with no connections to the rest of the world.
Re:
That's what the cookie consent labyrinths are for. This ruling goes much further in that simply referencing externally hosted resources is now considered a violation. If websites can no longer link to each other, well, then it's not a web any more.
One of the many terrible things about this decision is that the website owner didn't send the user's IP address to Google; the user's browser did.
I think that should be "fantasy fake products."
Someone should trademark the ® symbol.
Of course they know what they are doing. They also know that what they are doing wouldn't stand up to due process.
oversight: An unintentional failure to notice or do something.
Sounds like exactly what they want.
Both political parties and large corporations create legislation. There's clearly potential for confusion here.
Do People Want A Better Facebook, Or A Dead Facebook?
Some would say the only good Facebook is a dead Facebook.
I'm going to trademark the work cock-up and sue whoever is responsible for nonsense like this.
Re: Re:
Even if they did have Elvis Presley in mind, I think that's perfectly OK. If it was, in some way, inspired by Elvis Presley, saying so should be allowed. Nobody is going to think the beer was created, or endorsed, by the King, nor does such a product exist with which this one might be confused.
I must admit, when I saw some bottles of that beer in a bar fridge, my first association was in fact Elvis Presley. That doesn't mean it should be banned.
There's no irony here. She needs to break encryption precisely because her party members are using it when discussing what to do with her. Plotting to oust your leader, that's terrorism right there.
Is there a penalty in Oregon for calling yourself the inventor of email without being licensed to do so?
If a monkey takes a photo of Axl Rose, who owns the copyright?