31–40 of 217 posts
If the EU isn't fining someone for tracking users too much, they're fining them for not tracking users enough.
Granted, not all are fines for tracking users, but all sorts of violations. Reasoning is included in the table.
No good deed goes unpunished. Don't protect users' privacy, and you get flak from regulators for "not doing enough". Protect users' privacy, and you get flak from regulators because it's "too complex and hurts small companies that rely on advertising revenue". You see similar levels of cynicism directed at Google. When firefox banned third party cookies, it was almost universally welcomed, but when Chrome does it the…
One benefits directly while the other doesn't. Plus many people complained.
That's the exact of cynicism I'm talking about. It doesn't matter whether banning third party was good for users or not, only whether Google (or Mozilla) stood to benefit. This is absolutely toxic because it means objectively good changes get shouted down.
> Plus many people complained.
For what, Firefox?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The article specifically says that many apps feel like they need additional consent Are they right about that? Does Apple provide the app with confirmation that the user consented, and if they do, is it legal to rely on that confirmation?
You can definitely check on whether the user answered yes to the prompt, because if they declined you'll get a null (ie. all 0s) uuid. Whether app developers can rely on that as confirmation for tracking on their side is a purely legal question, and I wish the French government would try to resolve it on their side rather than going straight to fining Apple.
Actually Apple were fined because they don't apply the same standard to their own pop-ups that allow users to reject tracking. On Apple popups you seem to need one click, while on 3rd party popups you need to confirm twice. So the fine seems to be for treating 3rd parties differently from their own stuff. They could make their own popups require double confirmation instead...
When I install an app I get a single popup asking whether I want to share with advertisers or not.
I don't have to do anything twice.
Is it different in Europe or something? Is there a second popup there, and if so, what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but that second click isn't coming from Apple and they can't control it. The article specifically says that many apps feel like they need additional consent which means they have to request it through two channels. If Apple doesn't feel like they need additional consent and/or doesn't use ATT-blocked systems then they don't need that. This is stupid.
Right. I'm not sure this is fixable? Or maybe there is widespread misunderstanding of the requirements in this scenario? But I also thought the rule was tough enough to require verifying that extra consent? Maybe it's not? Truly confused here.
Not from Apple's end.
Apple mandates that all requests for permissions go through a single, OS-provided dialog. If a user accepts, the permission is granted; if the user rejects, the permission is not granted, and the app can't ask again. Simple enough.
App developers try to maximize their chances of getting that permission granted by adding another warm-up dialog before actually doing the official permissions request. Since those other dialogs aren't part of Apple's permissions request chain, they can be rejected by the user without consequence, and the app can present them as often as it wants.
There is nothing which requires third-party developers to use these additional dialogs. It's a design pattern (and an annoying one at that) which many developers have gravitated towards. Not all developers use it; in particular, Apple doesn't use it for their first-party apps. And apparently FCA is faulting Apple for not following that pattern themselves.
No good deed goes unpunished. Don't protect users' privacy, and you get flak from regulators for "not doing enough". Protect users' privacy, and you get flak from regulators because it's "too complex and hurts small companies that rely on advertising revenue". You see similar levels of cynicism directed at Google. When firefox banned third party cookies, it was almost universally welcomed, but when Chrome does it the…
Do other apps require double consent or is it actually a dark pattern they’ve adopted: * explain and prompt the user for consent * if they acquiesce pop the real modal * otherwise bide your time and try again later The reason for this is because once you receive a rejection in the official modal you are not allowed to ask again.
Actually Apple were fined because they don't apply the same standard to their own pop-ups that allow users to reject tracking. On Apple popups you seem to need one click, while on 3rd party popups you need to confirm twice. So the fine seems to be for treating 3rd parties differently from their own stuff. They could make their own popups require double confirmation instead...
What's even the "double confirmation" that's required? 1. the ATT permission prompt from iOS 2. a prompt from the app itself ?
I’m curious how things like this play into Trumps recent reciprocal tariff threats.
Probably it will. Vance even threatened to leave NATO if the EU regulates X. But EU countries are not satellite states of the US. At some point we just have to draw a line in the sand and stand by our own values, even if it comes at an expense. It's not as if tariffs and the retaliatory tariffs it will lead to is good for the US economy either. It's all just silly.
5 or even 10 years ago this would have been unthinkable in dutch politics, even if this has been called out a lot as a risk in tech circles.
[0] https://www.dutchitchannel.nl/news/602753/tweede-kamer-neemt...