3 ms·
The code appears to be used for fraud related purposes, meaning, to my understanding, Apple would likely argue it has a legitimate interest. There’s a lot of l
by alextheparrot 7y ago
The code appears to be used for fraud related purposes, meaning, to my understanding, Apple would likely argue it has a legitimate interest.
There’s a lot of legal language around this exception, but fraud is directly called out as a legitimate interest and means that the group controlling the data would not need to obtain user consent.
For additional reading, I’d recommend the following post: https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/legitimate-interest/ https://www.gdpreu.org/the-regulation/key-concepts/legitimat...
- the8472 7y agoIs apple the data controller here since it's all happening on the users' device? And does "legitimate interests" extend beyond the data controller's interests? I.e. if it's only about fraud against apple then safe browsing (which is supposed to protect the user from fraud) would not necessarily be a legitimate interest of apple. It might have to be opt-in at least.
- alextheparrot 7y agoGreat questions, which I know I'm not equipped to answer authoritatively - prior comment was just my two-cents on how I'd expect Apple to argue the issue (And even that argument may be a losing one). In opposition to the fraud argument, one could argue they wouldn't reasonable be expected to have their data forwarded to China. The counter-argument to that would likely be along the lines of users who have their localization set to China might have more of an expectation of this. And so the lawyer fees continue to increase in what would be an incredibly interesting case, honestly.