41–50 of 54 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who would be the guilty party here? If your phone is spying on me, I'll likely get angry with you. The fact that you're a victim of the football league isn't my problem, you're the one doing the spying.
La Liga of course. They are recording data about me, without my consent. Doing it through some third party (the phone owner) doesn't absolve them.
> It added it had received the microphone data only as code rather than audio, and that it could match that code with audio data from a match. That sounds funnily absurd to me. By that line of argument, even sound is not really audio. After all, it's being encoded as air pressure waves :-) EDIT: Pardon my ignorance. Based on Google Translate's translation of their statement [1], it seems that they are using some kind…
I guess they mean that they just have a summary of the sound, not enough to listen to it or anything. It would be a bit like just having the hash of a piece of data, not the data itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iPhones in Spain are absurdly expensive.
My other thinking is ROI. The people with the $100 Android phones were perceived as more likely to watch a black-market broadcast.
The sooner there's a Netflix for sport the better. Allowing fans to watch matches at a reasonable price, without having to sign up for channels and sports they're not interested in is such an obvious move, but the way rights are distributed means we'll be stuck in the dark ages for years.
For English Premier League there was initially just Sky bidding. Prices got pretty ridiculous for the matches as the football association could keep on putting price up and as so many people take Sky just for sports, they had no option to accept.
It then has got even more loopy. BT under the ex-CEO got into the fray, with BT and Sky bidding against each other for matches. Fees skyrocketed even more.
Now Amazon is bidding for live matches, so there is a 3 way bid driving prices even higher.
Even buying Sky Sports by itself is still really expensive, about £35/$50/month via NowTV. Plus you'd need BT Sports (~£10/month) and now Amazon Prime (~£8/month) to watch all the matches.
Sports are just going to keep on getting more and more expensive until the end customer stops paying, as the market will just work that way.
> The broadcasting of football matches in public places without a paid licence cost the game an estimated 150 million euros (£132m; $177m) a year, it said. Sounds suspiciously familiar to the way questionable data have been represented about money lost due to piracy in other industries (software, movies, music). I am very skeptical about those types of claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
La Liga of course. They are recording data about me, without my consent. Doing it through some third party (the phone owner) doesn't absolve them.
You're probably right, but doesn't the owner of the phone share some responsibility?
But this is probably a good example of why I generally refuse to install apps unless I genuinely need to. Almost all apps that people install can be replaced by using a web browser. Yet I see my friends installing tons of apps for no specific reason. Each one increases your attack surface.
Well... I hope this is something GPDR covers. If there was a case to start seeing the impact of the new law, this seems like a good example.
Would GDPR even cover this? I don't see why La Liga would need to include any personal information about the user in their data. They are concerned with identifying the buisness streaming pirated matches, not who is watching. Edit: The official statement actually answers this >The codes will not refer to your name, but to your IP address and the specific ID assigned by the PPP when you register.
Does GDPR generally allow you or your apps to collect information that helps identify legal and moral transgressions around you?
What if you are watching the game at a friend's house? The collection is definitely going to have some false positives.
In that case the coordinates would identify your friend.
It seems like deputizing devices to spy on others. Regardless if those others may be doing something wrong or are caught up by accident, it seems like the sort of thing data protection would prevent.
This will be a good test of real competing interests. I don't know that privacy should win in the end here, but both sides actually have powerful prima facie cases to make.
If you generate a fingerprint of the audio on the phone, you would not leak too much information about the environment. Shazam, for example, computes the spectrum, picks the strongest peaks, and uses the relative positions of small groups of peaks in time and frequency as features to search for in known recordings. Those features are quite sparse and you can not reconstruct the audio from them. You could however iden…
Private home licenses are different from public locals licenses and signals are also slightly different. Actually what bars do is buy a home license and use it for public locals. What I would find infuriating is they get away with it. Data Protection laws are very strict for the little guy, we will see what they do with the 500 pound gorilla. I'm not optimist. These laws did nothing to curb "legal spam" until GDPR. I…
[1] https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-shows/the-mystery-hour/c...