5 ms·

In this case, they were correct to request that you add data protection policy. Your app may still process personal data locally and then you're still subject t

by isodev 2y ago

In this case, they were correct to request that you add data protection policy. Your app may still process personal data locally and then you're still subject to data protection regulations.

alias_neo 2y ago
It doesn't.
tempfile 2y ago
Are you? If the user processes their own data on their own device using your software, you're the data processor?
- refulgentis 2y ago
  Correct. They are using my software to process their input.
- isodev 2y ago
  As the app developer you clearly control the means of processing, you are the data controller. You may have opted for “offline processing” which simplifies your compliance, but it is still processing under your control (and subject to change in future updates, which needs to come with a change to your data processing policy with informed user consent).
  - tempfile 2y ago
    It is certainly not processing under your control. You don't do anything with the data - none of your computers are involved, you never see or read or copy anyone's data whatsoever. The data subject is processing their own data, using a tool they perhaps don't understand (if the source code is unavailable, for example). The user is at liberty to start or stop the processing at any time. I don't even think this would apply in the pathological case where a bug in the app causes the personal data to be leaked. You didn't leak it, the user did.
- mordae 2y ago
  Uh-huh. Are we getting privacy policy for sed and grep next? EDIT: meant to reply lower.
- District5524 2y ago
  No. Data processor has a special meaning (at least under GDPR) and requires you to be a separate entity from the data controller (article 4(8) of GDPR). Just because you process data, will not make you a data processor. A software developer is neither a controller, nor a data processor per se, but the question is why the software processes any personal data. If there is no third person on whose behalf you process data, you might still easily be a data controller and all the privacy related obligations primarily rest on this role. Controllership does not depend on sending any data to remote locations/other apps outside the phone etc., but more on whether there is any personal data processed in the app at all and if there is, the reason for that processing. If you're not processing any personal data, you'll not be a controller, but if you do, you'll be unlikely to be able to skip this responsibility altogether. Considering you'll be the only one knowing exactly what your software can and cannot do with what kind of personal data, you'd better at least explain that to the user. Surely, developers of some software (e.g. compilers) will never be data controllers even if the software can compile software to process personal data... But for many frontend software, like apps, there is no such easy way out unless not processing any personal data at all, including usage data, which is also not an easy thing to do. But that doesn't mean you can just skip the obligation towards the store manageer who says you HAVE to provide a privacy policy even if you don't process any personal data. Similarly, processing for "purely personal or household activity", even by automated means is outside the scope of GDPR in EU, but that will not save you from the privacy policy obligation towards Apple or whomever.
  - dcow 2y ago
    What’s the 1 sentence version of your point?
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      Yes, unless someone spells out to you that they're the data controller and taking legal responsibility (think Google Analytics) I know that's the opposite of what they led with, I'm not trying to be cheeky. It's just shorter if you invert the premise and avoid technicalities. In general, on HN, I see people struggling to wrap their mind around that everyone who takes in data has to take it seriously, at least, that's how the app stores view it.
izacus 2y ago
You misunderstood the post I think.
- Arnt 2y ago
  No, it's true. On-device actions count in the eyes of the law. "This app processes the user's data on-device, does not allow other apps to access the data, and optionally copies it to a server that the user provides" is a description.
  - cyanydeez 2y ago
    Righy, isny it easy to understand, esepcially if your app allows http? The data protection policy would explicitly state such a exposure. "No ezposure" is a state. Any app that allows a user to put in a endpoint that transfers the user data should have a data policy, since a malactor could convince the user to change thta endpoint, leading to a breach. I think that it seems benign only in theory.
    - Arnt 2y ago
      IMO it is benign. Real-world apps don't get much better than that. For example, allowing the user to access the data is a feature, not a bug, and if you allow the user access to the data, then a blackhat can persuade the user to access and forward the data. This isn't a matter of HTTP or no HTTP, the user's data access is tightly bound to user's risk of social engineering. Being benign doesn't make the policy self-evident. Google's rule is that you have to state your policy, you're not allowed to argue that users should understand any policy as being self-evident. IMO that's good of Google, because the cost for nice apps like this is so minor: Having to write a one- or two-sentence policy.
      - cyanydeez 2y ago
        The point though, is, your dad is exiting the device and should have a data policy. If everything stays on the device, sure, ignore data privacy. But since you shuttle it through a hostile environment, it's important to identify how that data privacy is ensured.
pjc50 2y ago
You're going to have to cite a data protection authority case for me to believe that. Edit: no, the more I think about it the more this interpretation is completely nuts. It implies that every single software vendor needs to secure consent from every single end user of software they ship through any client. e.g. if SAP provide CRM software to Contoso, and Jim is a customer of Contoso, even though all the data is processed on Contoso premises, SAP still need to be in communication with Jim?
- dgroshev 2y ago
  It doesn't, at least not under GDPR and not in that scenario. Contoso is a "[personal] data controller" and SAP is a "data processor". Contoso has a legal responsibility for all personal data and for all its vendors. Contrary to a popular opinion, GDPR is fairly logical and close to common sense. It gets murkier with "joint data processing" (a cursed cop-out for scenarios like Facebook acting both as a data processor for a website's ad tracking and as a data controller for its own ad tracking at the same time), but the scenario you described is not that.
- isodev 2y ago
  Well, certainly don't rely on forums to get your legal info. Feel free to consult someone versed with data protection regulations in countries where your app is available.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

by isodev 2y ago

In this case, they were correct to request that you add data protection policy. Your app may still process personal data locally and then you're still subject to data protection regulations.

alias_neo 2y ago

It doesn't.

tempfile 2y ago

Are you? If the user processes their own data on their own device using your software, you're the data processor?

refulgentis 2y ago
Correct. They are using my software to process their input.
isodev 2y ago
As the app developer you clearly control the means of processing, you are the data controller. You may have opted for “offline processing” which simplifies your compliance, but it is still processing under your control (and subject to change in future updates, which needs to come with a change to your data processing policy with informed user consent).
- tempfile 2y ago
  It is certainly not processing under your control. You don't do anything with the data - none of your computers are involved, you never see or read or copy anyone's data whatsoever. The data subject is processing their own data, using a tool they perhaps don't understand (if the source code is unavailable, for example). The user is at liberty to start or stop the processing at any time. I don't even think this would apply in the pathological case where a bug in the app causes the personal data to be leaked. You didn't leak it, the user did.
mordae 2y ago
Uh-huh. Are we getting privacy policy for sed and grep next? EDIT: meant to reply lower.
District5524 2y ago
No. Data processor has a special meaning (at least under GDPR) and requires you to be a separate entity from the data controller (article 4(8) of GDPR). Just because you process data, will not make you a data processor. A software developer is neither a controller, nor a data processor per se, but the question is why the software processes any personal data. If there is no third person on whose behalf you process data, you might still easily be a data controller and all the privacy related obligations primarily rest on this role. Controllership does not depend on sending any data to remote locations/other apps outside the phone etc., but more on whether there is any personal data processed in the app at all and if there is, the reason for that processing. If you're not processing any personal data, you'll not be a controller, but if you do, you'll be unlikely to be able to skip this responsibility altogether. Considering you'll be the only one knowing exactly what your software can and cannot do with what kind of personal data, you'd better at least explain that to the user. Surely, developers of some software (e.g. compilers) will never be data controllers even if the software can compile software to process personal data... But for many frontend software, like apps, there is no such easy way out unless not processing any personal data at all, including usage data, which is also not an easy thing to do. But that doesn't mean you can just skip the obligation towards the store manageer who says you HAVE to provide a privacy policy even if you don't process any personal data. Similarly, processing for "purely personal or household activity", even by automated means is outside the scope of GDPR in EU, but that will not save you from the privacy policy obligation towards Apple or whomever.
- dcow 2y ago
  What’s the 1 sentence version of your point?
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    Yes, unless someone spells out to you that they're the data controller and taking legal responsibility (think Google Analytics) I know that's the opposite of what they led with, I'm not trying to be cheeky. It's just shorter if you invert the premise and avoid technicalities. In general, on HN, I see people struggling to wrap their mind around that everyone who takes in data has to take it seriously, at least, that's how the app stores view it.

izacus 2y ago

You misunderstood the post I think.

Arnt 2y ago
No, it's true. On-device actions count in the eyes of the law. "This app processes the user's data on-device, does not allow other apps to access the data, and optionally copies it to a server that the user provides" is a description.
- cyanydeez 2y ago
  Righy, isny it easy to understand, esepcially if your app allows http? The data protection policy would explicitly state such a exposure. "No ezposure" is a state. Any app that allows a user to put in a endpoint that transfers the user data should have a data policy, since a malactor could convince the user to change thta endpoint, leading to a breach. I think that it seems benign only in theory.
  - Arnt 2y ago
    IMO it is benign. Real-world apps don't get much better than that. For example, allowing the user to access the data is a feature, not a bug, and if you allow the user access to the data, then a blackhat can persuade the user to access and forward the data. This isn't a matter of HTTP or no HTTP, the user's data access is tightly bound to user's risk of social engineering. Being benign doesn't make the policy self-evident. Google's rule is that you have to state your policy, you're not allowed to argue that users should understand any policy as being self-evident. IMO that's good of Google, because the cost for nice apps like this is so minor: Having to write a one- or two-sentence policy.
    - cyanydeez 2y ago
      The point though, is, your dad is exiting the device and should have a data policy. If everything stays on the device, sure, ignore data privacy. But since you shuttle it through a hostile environment, it's important to identify how that data privacy is ensured.

pjc50 2y ago

You're going to have to cite a data protection authority case for me to believe that. Edit: no, the more I think about it the more this interpretation is completely nuts. It implies that every single software vendor needs to secure consent from every single end user of software they ship through any client. e.g. if SAP provide CRM software to Contoso, and Jim is a customer of Contoso, even though all the data is processed on Contoso premises, SAP still need to be in communication with Jim?

dgroshev 2y ago
It doesn't, at least not under GDPR and not in that scenario. Contoso is a "[personal] data controller" and SAP is a "data processor". Contoso has a legal responsibility for all personal data and for all its vendors. Contrary to a popular opinion, GDPR is fairly logical and close to common sense. It gets murkier with "joint data processing" (a cursed cop-out for scenarios like Facebook acting both as a data processor for a website's ad tracking and as a data controller for its own ad tracking at the same time), but the scenario you described is not that.
isodev 2y ago
Well, certainly don't rely on forums to get your legal info. Feel free to consult someone versed with data protection regulations in countries where your app is available.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]