4 ms·
Companies have had two years to get their act sorted out on this.
by neffy 8y ago
Companies have had two years to get their act sorted out on this.
- itake 8y agoI can still purchase a "new" 2 year old phone. I think that is a valid question.
- sveme 8y agoAren‘t the ToS pulled from the web when you set it up with a google account? I doubt you‘re agreeing to two year old ToS.
- ldjb 8y agoPossibly, but it still might not be possible for Google to provide a means to decline the ToS without issuing an update (which, as has been pointed out, wouldn't be possible to install anyway without accepting the ToS).
- madez 8y agoThen it's a device that does not comply the regulation and must not be sold.
- ldjb 8y agoSure, that argument could certainly be made. But unless someone is taken to court over this (or at the very least, threats are made), I think people will continue selling such phones. After all, most sellers aren't going to realise their products are in violation of the law.
- whyagaindavid 8y agoTerrible for the environment. Lets apply rules with common sense [1]. As much I am for privacy this kind of interpretation is very bad. 1. https://study.com/academy/answer/summarize-all-about-a-dog-by-a-g-gardiner.html https://study.com/academy/answer/summarize-all-about-a-dog-b...
- jkaplowitz 8y agoThe device could still be software-updated then sold, or sold outside the EU. Nobody is saying that it must be landfilled.
- ballenf 8y agoIf they flag compliant devices, it would be possible on the server side to limit data collected that comes in without the "GDPR-Compliant: true" flag.
- lloydsparkes 8y agoEven if the ToS are pulled from the web, it might just pull the document, not the UI, providing opt-outs, etc
- iainmerrick 8y agoThey could replace it with a document saying “There are no conditions of use. Enjoy your new phone!”
- Senderman 8y agofwiw, the phone in the complaint is from 2018.
- jerf 8y agoIf a product that was in compliance goes out of compliance due to legal changes, it generally has to be pulled from the shelves. I'm saying this strictly from a legal perspective, not endorsing it per se, and I acknowledge the significant expense involved. But this sort of thing happens pretty frequently in a lot of other industries, and the result is pulled product and often a lot of destruction of unsold product. In this case, fortunately, the hardware may not necessarily need to be destroyed, but it couldn't be sold until the software stack complies. Or, more likely economical, ship the phones somewhere where they are still legal and ship new stock into the EU with updated software. Or make sure there's an immediate update available for the phones and petition the EU for a variance on the grounds that as long as they update, they'll get compliant software. There's a number of options.
- lloydsparkes 8y agoIf google had made software updates available, which gave the correct options and are GDPR compliant. But the OEM, Network don't approve / supply those updates, is Google at fault? (In this case its a non-Google phone running Android)
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoIt's Google's terms, and Google is the one who determined the mandatory flow of that setup as per agreement with the hardware vendor. The EU could absolutely hold them responsible for not having this sorted out with their partners, it isn't like the OEM put the terms on a device and sold it without Google's permission.
- eitally 8y agoBut the OEM is responsible for software support for their devices (this is the entire Android model and why Google has been working so hard on the Treble project the past year+). Since the current version of Android doesn't have this problem, I don't see how this is Google's problem.
- 8y ago
- kerng 8y agoWell, think about cars and emission issues that need updates - manufacture does recalls and fixes it for everyone. Not sure what's different here? Why not just pull it from stores and fix it if its violating law?