Remote View
Apple hit with $162 million French antitrust fine over privacy tool
Apple hit with $162 million French antitrust fine over privacy tool
www.reuters.com
reuters.com
30 comments
-
I call bullshit on this one. France takes issue with Apple implementing App Tracking Transparency because it hurts advertisers? What exactly does France think following the law looks like? Allowing advertisers to track you by default? What Apple has done with ATT isn't all that different from what the EU has required every damn website on the internet to do... ask permission to track.
More damning, in the ruling the court did not outline any specific way the software should change. This honestly just seems like a money grab on the part of France.
What principles is France and the EU after? Because this ruling makes it seem like it has no principles aside from "find any reason to issue a fine because the defendant is a big American company."
I tend to agree with tightening regulations on tech, but there should at least be clear rules that can be followed, not arbitrary rules defined after the fact, if they're defined at all.
-
Its not the EUs fault that US companies keep breaking the law. Don't break the law, don't get fined. It really is simple. EU companies aren't getting these fines.
-
To be clear: you agree with France that advertisers should have free reign to track you because some app developers are small businesses?
If you didn't read the article and are just being a little jingo right now, that's what you're defending. A fine that says you can't protect users privacy if it interferes with small businesses, but also we have no specific requests for how you should change the tool.
-
No. The GDPR is an all encompassing law, the logic of which being giving people THE CHOICE to let apps personalise their ads, or not. Apple takes away that choice by not allowing tracking by default on a per-app basis. This is what is at stake.
What Apple is doing is indeed disrespecting the spirit of the law by taking away the choice of being tracked, while also damaging EU businesses who rely on advertising because believe it or not, there are many small app creators as well as small advertising companies operating in the EU.
-
So you are defending advertisers against users by calling it a choice? You think tracking is a net good that any informed person would opt in to?
You're defending immoral practices by saying it's the law.
-
My opinion on the matter is irrelevant, I'm just explaining what the case is about.
The advertising industry is real, and will keep existing, whether you like it or not. And yes, having the option to be an informed consumer and choose who gets to track you is a net positive. Some people LIKE targeted ads.
Plus, it's not like Apple was protecting you from ads so I don't know what your point even is? You're defending them having a monopoly on who gets to advertise to you, and that, on EU soil, won't do.
-
you're absolutely insane I don't want to talk to you
-
-
-
Uh, no. GDPR is about how private data is stored, handled, and removed - and if it could be sent to third parties then only with the user’s consent. The consent is only a requirement if data is being sent to third parties - not sending data to third parties is perfectly fine and almost encouraged.
Source: working heavily with PII and talking to data privacy lawyers quite often
-
Close but no cigar. It's also about collecting as little data as possible. Company can be sued or fined if a data collection is deemed excessive.
-
You are right, and this adds to my point.
-
-
and if it could be sent to third parties then only with the user’s consent.
You literally said it. Apple removes this option.
Why are you even upset? Its not like you're being forced to allow your data to be transmitted. The GDPR wants a standardised way of choosing which apps can track you and which don't, and Apple is out of the norm. You're just upset because the EU is forcing apple to standardise, is that it? Were you also upset when the EU forced apple to adopt USB-C too? You're literally complaining about having more choice.
Also, I cannot shake off the feeling that everyone in this sub is just shilling allowing a massive US conglomerate to exploit all digital ad revenue on EU soil, while local smaller companies get jack.
It would be like some EU car manufacturer selling electric cars in the US that van only be charged using proprietary chargers from the EU. Surely consumers would be upset at the lack of choice, and with reason.
Or maybe not. After all, tesla was allowed to do just that for a very long time. In any case, the EU is opening business opportunities (or rather, re-opening them) by shutting down a monopolistic practice that harms competition. The US refuses to make use of their antitrust laws, so we have to do it for you. You're welcome.
-
Did you read past that sentence?
I am in no way trying to support Apple but perhaps you should reflect on the very questions and statements you’re making.
-
I did, but what you said is incorrect.
Not giving away your data isn't encouraged and I challenge you to point out where in the law does that say. It would be stupid to even include such a passage because it would be a blatant attack on the advertising industry and the EU is a neoliberal pro-capitalist institution that wants businesses to operate inside the bloc.
And I say it again, this is a niche community, but a lot of people like targeted advertising.
I know, because I hate advertising and I preach to everyone around me that they should just reject all tracking and some have told me "but I want to see relevant ads. If I have to see ads they might as well be relevant to me." which is a totally fair point.
-
I can’t tell if you’re deliberately trolling or not but here you go:
Data minimization is a key principle of the GDPR. It requires organizations to collect and process only the personal data that is necessary for their specified purposes. It explicitly addresses data minimization in Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, which states that personal data shall be: “adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (‘data minimization’).”
Here https://usercentrics.com/knowledge-hub/data-minimization/
-
Did you just read "Data minimization" and assume it means that data collection should be minimized at all times?
There's a reason why when you fill the GDPR consent popup all advertising companies have the "legitimate interest" on by default, because it falls under the "data that is necessary for their specified purposes", which in their case means the purpose of displaying relevant ads and paying the app developer some money for it. And even then, you're allowed to turn that legitimate interest OFF.
I'm the one who's not sure if you're trolling or just a shill. How many rubles are they paying you?
-
Thanks for mentioning what you did about “legitimate interest” - at least now it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’d suggest reading up on it, looking at cookie banners on GDPR-compliant websites, and talking to privacy lawyers or people that regularly work in this space as a starting point. Have a good day!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
What law was broken? The court didn't seem able to even articulate it. You can't either.
-
Yes they did. Its a new precedent set based on anticompetitive practices. Shouldn't be hard to understand.
I know the US is a full blown oligarchy where a few men are allowed to control everything, but the EU actually has some standards.
-
You still didn't articulate it. You're just throwing around generalities.
-
-
-
-
30 comments