> And yes, IANAL. Politely, you're presumably not a lawyer of European law. > Then, in paragraph 38 [. . .] In paragraph 39 They're called Recitals, and I'm

> And yes, IANAL. Politely, you're presumably not a lawyer of European law. > Then, in paragraph 38 [. . .] In paragraph 39 They're called Recitals, and I'm not sure why you're so focused on them. Recitals help clarify purpose but are not legally binding[1]. > These exceptions then are codified in Article 11, which uses 'shall', not 'must' This proves the opposite of the point you're making. Shall denotes an obligation[2]. > which gives us another reason when this does not apply - for devices which need to have power constantly, e.g. for the integrity of data collection. Which you could easily argue that smartphones fall under. Come on. That's not a good faith interpretation of the exception. [1] https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-009-6368?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-009-6368?transi... [2] https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/c45f5b70-2d0e-4da7-b181-b5fe3a16c4bb_en https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/c45f5b70-2d0e... paragraph 10.27