Apple hit with $162 million French antitrust fine over privacy tool
-
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.
-
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.
No. GDPR exists for many reasons, one of them being giving people THE CHOICE to let apps personalise their ads, or not. Apple takes away that choice by not allowing tracking by default. 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.
-
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.
What law was broken? The court didn't seem able to even articulate it. You can't either.
-
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.
-
No. GDPR exists for many reasons, one of them being giving people THE CHOICE to let apps personalise their ads, or not. Apple takes away that choice by not allowing tracking by default. 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.
-
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.
Plus, it's not like Apple was protecting you from Ada so I don't know what your point even is?
-
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.
Plus, it's not like Apple was protecting you from Ada so I don't know what your point even is?
you're absolutely insane I don't want to talk to you
-
Yes they did. Its a new precedent set based on anticompetitive practices. Shouldn't be hard to understand.
You still didn't articulate it. You're just throwing around generalities.
-
No. GDPR exists for many reasons, one of them being giving people THE CHOICE to let apps personalise their ads, or not. Apple takes away that choice by not allowing tracking by default. 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.
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
-
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
and if it could be sent to third parties then only with the user’s consent.
You literally said it. Apple removes this option.
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.
-
and if it could be sent to third parties then only with the user’s consent.
You literally said it. Apple removes this option.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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/
-
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.
I'm the one who's not sure if you're trolling or just a shill. How many Rubles are they paying you?
-
That’s just one of the dumbest reasons to sue Apple…
-
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.
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!
-
It added that the privacy tool "particularly penalized smaller publishers," as they depend to a large extent on the collection of third-party data to fund their businesses.
If your business depends on collecting the private data of users to sell to other companies, then you don’t deserve to exist as a business. I don’t care if these are the “little guys”, the entire ad business is a parasitical industry.
