6 ms·

Related (7 years ago): https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/8q1j0o/la_liga_uses_its_official_app_to_spy_on_bars_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/commen

Related (7 years ago): https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/8q1j0o/la_liga_uses_its_official_app_to_spy_on_bars_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/8q1j0o/la_liga_uses... - Bars, pubs and other public establishments have to pay around 200€/month in order to show football on their TVs while the household package goes between 10 and 30€/month. - The official app, with over 10 million downloads, asks you for microphone and GPS permissions. - La Liga remotely activates the microphone and tries to detect if the sound matches with that of a football match. In addition, it uses the geolocation of the phone to locate exactly where the establishment is located. That way they can locate bars and other establishments where football is being pirated or showed without paying for the bar package. Still amazes me this just sort of went by and no one really seemed bothered. Absolutely insane.

Phemist 1y ago
Wait, does that also mean bars have to police what people are watching on their phone, otherwise risking big fines? E.g. I go to the pub, have a drink and watch some random LaLiga match on my phone?
- piltdownman 1y ago
  No, the bar pays something like 10x the price of a normal subscription to be able to publicly show live Sports as a draw for their customers. In UK/Ireland you can easily identify if the venue in question is paying for the commercial package as it will intermittently display a pint glass symbol in a bottom corner of the screen. Indeed, Sky investigators, who do spot checks, use it to quickly ensure that the pub has a valid pub contract and not a residential contract. https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/668952/why-pub-TVs-have-pint-glass-in-corner-screen https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/668952/why-pub-TV... La Liga are presumably muxing infrasonic audio into their residential streams to try and: (a) watermark the residential account(s) used to provide the streaming services so they can prosecute the providers (b) Detect commercial usage of residential accounts used in piracy to prosecute the venues, by listening out via the App. They could presumably get around GDPR by virtue of the fact they're only listening and recording audio out of human audible range, and only for identification of copyright infringement as per the TOS of the La Liga App.
  - eightysixfour 1y ago
    I don't believe that's what OP is asking, they mean to ask about the following scenario: 1. Someone sitting next to you in a bar is playing a match on their phone, but the bar is not. 2. Your phone has the app installed and hears the match. 3. La Liga sues the bar?
    - moduspol 1y ago
      Presumably then La Liga investigates the bar in-person. Or waits until X reports have occurred over Y duration and THEN have someone investigate in-person.
      - progbits 1y ago
        You are giving them a lot more credit than their behavior deserves.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - Aurornis 1y ago
      I doubt it. They’re not going to take a case to court for a single hit because it would be so easily dismissed. They would have higher priority situations where dozens of phones hit at the same time in the same bar.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    >In UK/Ireland you can easily identify if the venue in question is paying for the commercial package as it will intermittently display a pint glass symbol in a bottom corner of the screen. Indeed, Sky investigators, who do spot checks, use it to quickly ensure that the pub has a valid pub contract and not a residential contract. That seems as if it would be so easy to fake...
    - fragmede 1y ago
      Does it cost more less time/effort for the bar to fake it though? The price of 200€/month above seems low enough to just pay it.
outside2344 1y ago
There has to be a EU privacy violation in there somewhere right? Or does that not count for giant EU companies?
- whatevaa 1y ago
  GDPR is enforced by country itself and this racket is supported by government, so... You would need to sue whole country.
- Angostura 1y ago
  It’s not personal data.
  - mvieira38 1y ago
    Legally, you mean? Because I'd say most reasonable people would say a literal wire on your phone is pretty personal. Location is PID too if they store the data at all
    - Angostura 1y ago
      I misread/misunderstood. Apologies
  - zmgsabst 1y ago
    GPS of your phone and the audio from your phone? How is that not personal data?
    - bilekas 1y ago
      It's not identifiable info maybe ?
      - eptcyka 1y ago
        It is.
next_xibalba 1y ago
I would never agree to this. But it doesn't strike me as particularly unethical, either. So long as both parties understand what they're agreeing to, this seems perfectly fine. If, for example, the NFL ever did this, I would just not watch.
- saghm 1y ago
  I'm not sure about other sports, but for the MLB, there are some very strange policies that make it difficult to watch games even if you want to pay for it, mostly stemming from the local broadcasters of the games. Even if you sign up for the subscription service to stream games, they'll "black out" the games that they expect you to be able to watch by getting a cable subscription, which not only is ridiculous (since one on of the main selling points for streaming is to not have to pay for a bundle of things you mostly don't want to be able to get the few things you do), but it assumes that people will never be traveling and unable to watch the games locally even if they do normally have access to it. My dad frequently travels for work, and he pays for the streaming service mostly to be able to watch Phillies games despite living in the Boston area, but the blackout rules mean that he can't even watch the Red Sox games with the streaming service if he's traveling outside of Boston. He also can't watch the Phillies games when they play the Red Sox in Boston, which is mostly fine, but it's still a little weird since he'll be have to watch the Red Sox broadcast (and therefore their commentators) rather than the Phillies one he's used to seeing for their games. The games that are given special slots on ESPN also tend to be blacked out for everyone, so that also causes issues for people wanting to stream them even if it's not a local game. The whole model seems to be more about trying to railroad people in paying for a less convenient, more expensive product even when they actively want to pay for something that's actually available but artificially limited. I don't get why anyone would be surprised that people just turn to "piracy" when things work like this.
  - hearsathought 1y ago
    Why doesn't he just save himself the time, money and hassle and just watch the highlights or highlight clips. I understand why the NFL is going the stream route given how popular it is already. They can afford to inconvenience people. But MLB has been stagnant or declining for so long. You'd think they'd make their content more accessible to grow the fan base.
throw0101d 1y ago
> In addition, it uses the geolocation of the phone to locate exactly where the establishment is located. How much do GPS/Galileo/GNSS jammers go for nowadays?
- inasio 1y ago
  In days of prison time?
distances 1y ago
> - Bars, pubs and other public establishments have to pay around 200€/month in order to show football on their TVs while the household package goes between 10 and 30€/month. This is common in Europe in general, also for copyrighted music. If your establishment wants to play recorded music, even just playing the radio or Spotify on the background, a copyright royalty fee has to be paid. Applies to all venues and events. Bars, restaurants, grocery shops, barbers, sports events, concerts, taxis, lounges, everything with an audience. I don't want to say it's the same everywhere in the EU, but I have always assumed it's a common concept in most western countries at least.
- Aurornis 1y ago
  This is common in many countries around the world. I’m sure the prices have gone up since that comment, but 200€/month actually seems very reasonable for a commercial bar that shows sporting events. That’s let’s than 7€/day and would be more than covered by the first group of people walking in the door and buying a round of drinks. I don’t approve of the microphone activation spying stuff or the ridiculous internet blocking. However it’s also kind of bizarre that it reached this point when the monthly fees for bar owners were such a trivial amount.
  - cobbaut 1y ago
    > That’s let’s than 7€/day There is no daily Spanish football. There are also things like 'interland breaks' or vacation periods when there is no football for two or more consecutive weeks, but the fee still needs to be payed.
- NooneAtAll3 1y ago
  is it different from turning on radio?
  - distances 1y ago
    Applies to radio. If a taxi driver plays music from a car radio to customers, the royalty fee has to be paid.
matheusmoreira 1y ago
Private corporations acting like police, engaging in illegal wiretapping and eavesdropping at massive scales to detect and punish crimes as defined by themselves. We truly are living in a cyberpunk dystopia.
- kulahan 1y ago
  It's clearly not illegal.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    That's what makes it a dystopia
  - cestith 1y ago
    Often it’s not. Back when Sony put a Windows rootkit on autorun on music CDs just in case someone wanted to rip a FLAC, that was a felony violation of the CFAA in the US. The big difference is consent. If I use your app to watch a game and the conditions of using your app include giving you microphone access, that’s legal. If you breach my phone to turn on the mic and listen to me, that’s illegal.
    - codedokode 1y ago
      So if someone for example, adds a statement to T&C that as a payment for use of software, the user consents to collecting of a sequence of pressed keys (including 16-digit numbers) and selling them on the black market to whoever is interested, it becomes legal?
      - cestith 1y ago
        Where did I say that?
    - john01dav 1y ago
      Calling something like that "consent" when it's the only (legal) way to obtain specific services is extremely dubious. A much more rigorous definition of "consent" is generally enforced in cases where the ruling class doesn't gain by having such consent.
create-username 1y ago
of course you can tip your favourite bar to the football police https://laligabares.com/denuncias/ https://laligabares.com/denuncias/

Phemist 1y ago

Wait, does that also mean bars have to police what people are watching on their phone, otherwise risking big fines? E.g. I go to the pub, have a drink and watch some random LaLiga match on my phone?

piltdownman 1y ago
No, the bar pays something like 10x the price of a normal subscription to be able to publicly show live Sports as a draw for their customers. In UK/Ireland you can easily identify if the venue in question is paying for the commercial package as it will intermittently display a pint glass symbol in a bottom corner of the screen. Indeed, Sky investigators, who do spot checks, use it to quickly ensure that the pub has a valid pub contract and not a residential contract. https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/668952/why-pub-TVs-have-pint-glass-in-corner-screen https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/668952/why-pub-TV... La Liga are presumably muxing infrasonic audio into their residential streams to try and: (a) watermark the residential account(s) used to provide the streaming services so they can prosecute the providers (b) Detect commercial usage of residential accounts used in piracy to prosecute the venues, by listening out via the App. They could presumably get around GDPR by virtue of the fact they're only listening and recording audio out of human audible range, and only for identification of copyright infringement as per the TOS of the La Liga App.
- eightysixfour 1y ago
  I don't believe that's what OP is asking, they mean to ask about the following scenario: 1. Someone sitting next to you in a bar is playing a match on their phone, but the bar is not. 2. Your phone has the app installed and hears the match. 3. La Liga sues the bar?
  - moduspol 1y ago
    Presumably then La Liga investigates the bar in-person. Or waits until X reports have occurred over Y duration and THEN have someone investigate in-person.
    - progbits 1y ago
      You are giving them a lot more credit than their behavior deserves.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aurornis 1y ago
    I doubt it. They’re not going to take a case to court for a single hit because it would be so easily dismissed. They would have higher priority situations where dozens of phones hit at the same time in the same bar.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  >In UK/Ireland you can easily identify if the venue in question is paying for the commercial package as it will intermittently display a pint glass symbol in a bottom corner of the screen. Indeed, Sky investigators, who do spot checks, use it to quickly ensure that the pub has a valid pub contract and not a residential contract. That seems as if it would be so easy to fake...
  - fragmede 1y ago
    Does it cost more less time/effort for the bar to fake it though? The price of 200€/month above seems low enough to just pay it.

outside2344 1y ago

There has to be a EU privacy violation in there somewhere right? Or does that not count for giant EU companies?

whatevaa 1y ago
GDPR is enforced by country itself and this racket is supported by government, so... You would need to sue whole country.
Angostura 1y ago
It’s not personal data.
- mvieira38 1y ago
  Legally, you mean? Because I'd say most reasonable people would say a literal wire on your phone is pretty personal. Location is PID too if they store the data at all
  - Angostura 1y ago
    I misread/misunderstood. Apologies
- zmgsabst 1y ago
  GPS of your phone and the audio from your phone? How is that not personal data?
  - bilekas 1y ago
    It's not identifiable info maybe ?
    - eptcyka 1y ago
      It is.

next_xibalba 1y ago

I would never agree to this. But it doesn't strike me as particularly unethical, either. So long as both parties understand what they're agreeing to, this seems perfectly fine. If, for example, the NFL ever did this, I would just not watch.

saghm 1y ago
I'm not sure about other sports, but for the MLB, there are some very strange policies that make it difficult to watch games even if you want to pay for it, mostly stemming from the local broadcasters of the games. Even if you sign up for the subscription service to stream games, they'll "black out" the games that they expect you to be able to watch by getting a cable subscription, which not only is ridiculous (since one on of the main selling points for streaming is to not have to pay for a bundle of things you mostly don't want to be able to get the few things you do), but it assumes that people will never be traveling and unable to watch the games locally even if they do normally have access to it. My dad frequently travels for work, and he pays for the streaming service mostly to be able to watch Phillies games despite living in the Boston area, but the blackout rules mean that he can't even watch the Red Sox games with the streaming service if he's traveling outside of Boston. He also can't watch the Phillies games when they play the Red Sox in Boston, which is mostly fine, but it's still a little weird since he'll be have to watch the Red Sox broadcast (and therefore their commentators) rather than the Phillies one he's used to seeing for their games. The games that are given special slots on ESPN also tend to be blacked out for everyone, so that also causes issues for people wanting to stream them even if it's not a local game. The whole model seems to be more about trying to railroad people in paying for a less convenient, more expensive product even when they actively want to pay for something that's actually available but artificially limited. I don't get why anyone would be surprised that people just turn to "piracy" when things work like this.
- hearsathought 1y ago
  Why doesn't he just save himself the time, money and hassle and just watch the highlights or highlight clips. I understand why the NFL is going the stream route given how popular it is already. They can afford to inconvenience people. But MLB has been stagnant or declining for so long. You'd think they'd make their content more accessible to grow the fan base.

throw0101d 1y ago

> In addition, it uses the geolocation of the phone to locate exactly where the establishment is located. How much do GPS/Galileo/GNSS jammers go for nowadays?

inasio 1y ago
In days of prison time?

distances 1y ago

> - Bars, pubs and other public establishments have to pay around 200€/month in order to show football on their TVs while the household package goes between 10 and 30€/month. This is common in Europe in general, also for copyrighted music. If your establishment wants to play recorded music, even just playing the radio or Spotify on the background, a copyright royalty fee has to be paid. Applies to all venues and events. Bars, restaurants, grocery shops, barbers, sports events, concerts, taxis, lounges, everything with an audience. I don't want to say it's the same everywhere in the EU, but I have always assumed it's a common concept in most western countries at least.

Aurornis 1y ago
This is common in many countries around the world. I’m sure the prices have gone up since that comment, but 200€/month actually seems very reasonable for a commercial bar that shows sporting events. That’s let’s than 7€/day and would be more than covered by the first group of people walking in the door and buying a round of drinks. I don’t approve of the microphone activation spying stuff or the ridiculous internet blocking. However it’s also kind of bizarre that it reached this point when the monthly fees for bar owners were such a trivial amount.
- cobbaut 1y ago
  > That’s let’s than 7€/day There is no daily Spanish football. There are also things like 'interland breaks' or vacation periods when there is no football for two or more consecutive weeks, but the fee still needs to be payed.
NooneAtAll3 1y ago
is it different from turning on radio?
- distances 1y ago
  Applies to radio. If a taxi driver plays music from a car radio to customers, the royalty fee has to be paid.

matheusmoreira 1y ago

Private corporations acting like police, engaging in illegal wiretapping and eavesdropping at massive scales to detect and punish crimes as defined by themselves. We truly are living in a cyberpunk dystopia.

kulahan 1y ago
It's clearly not illegal.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  That's what makes it a dystopia
- cestith 1y ago
  Often it’s not. Back when Sony put a Windows rootkit on autorun on music CDs just in case someone wanted to rip a FLAC, that was a felony violation of the CFAA in the US. The big difference is consent. If I use your app to watch a game and the conditions of using your app include giving you microphone access, that’s legal. If you breach my phone to turn on the mic and listen to me, that’s illegal.
  - codedokode 1y ago
    So if someone for example, adds a statement to T&C that as a payment for use of software, the user consents to collecting of a sequence of pressed keys (including 16-digit numbers) and selling them on the black market to whoever is interested, it becomes legal?
    - cestith 1y ago
      Where did I say that?
  - john01dav 1y ago
    Calling something like that "consent" when it's the only (legal) way to obtain specific services is extremely dubious. A much more rigorous definition of "consent" is generally enforced in cases where the ruling class doesn't gain by having such consent.

create-username 1y ago

of course you can tip your favourite bar to the football police https://laligabares.com/denuncias/ https://laligabares.com/denuncias/