Apple Subject to 'Special Abuse Control' Says German Antitrust Regulator [Updated]

[Vref]

Not for nothing, but the list of pressing (and potentially life destroying) global issues caused by regulation is a lot shorter than the list for deregulation.

The market was supposed to sort out so many things and somehow always ends up prioritising shareholder value over anything else. To preempt your question, no regulation isn't always the answer, but that doesn't mean that it's never the answer either.

Big tech as a whole is ripe for regulation.

I don’t think that’s true, when it comes to public traded sized companies and even very large private corps, they tend to be connected with the gov, so it’s not really free market when the gov still has its fingers in the pie

I’d still wager this has much more to do with encryption and back doors than it does Germany feeling bad for the poor app devs and android etc

 

[Futurix]

It's unsurprising, but still a little strange to me when governments take the position to move against policies that attempt to protect privacy. It's probably a healthy blend of stupidity and corruption.

Especially in Germany, country completely paranoid about maintaining privacy.

 

[Vref]

Especially in Germany, country completely paranoid about maintaining privacy.

They are in 14 eyes, kinda hard to be in a giant surveillance group and be into privacy 🤷‍♂️

 

[ericwn]

Roughly 60% market share for Android in Germany and even bigger on a global basis. That's a much bigger number. Less security, less privacy, more corrupt.

Yup, not uncommon for the KA to observe Apple’s competition as well. I believe it’s been mentioned above a few times that that has already happened.

 

[Asbow]

Thanks for the chuckle.

Agreed. AppStore made iOS what it is now. I remember my original iPhone. Functionality wise, sack of rubbish. iOS1 was absolutely pony.

 

[Kar98]

Agreed. AppStore made iOS what it is now. I remember my original iPhone. Functionality wise, sack of rubbish. iOS1 was absolutely pony.

OG iPhone made me buy a Windows Mobile phone made by HTC. At least I could send MMS and use 3G. And it had GPS.

 

[Abazigal]

It's more like this:

Apple: Third-party applications and services on our platform need to comply with our App Tracking Transparency Framework to ensure end-user privacy protection.

Germany: That's great! What about first-party applications and services though? Are your own applications and services subject to the same App Tracking Transparency Framework to ensure the same end-user privacy protection as the third-parties are in force?

Apple: Nope.

Germany: Interesting double standard...

Yes, it is actually.

ATT is basically intended to prevent the intermingling of data from different sources. Apple uses only first party day for their App Store ads, so they are technically not violating any of their own rules.

Of course, one can question why ATT is opt-in for competitors while being opt-out for Apple by default, or how ATT seems specifically designed to kneecap Facebook while having minimal impact on Apple’s own data collection. But given that the majority of iOS users already opt out of App Store data collection anyways, Apple likely doesn’t lose much changing it to the other way.

 

[constructor]

MSFT is worth over a trillion dollars. Why havent they been subject to it? Windows has far more than 2 billion devices in operation. They operate on 80-90% of computers.

They have been subject to oversight and regulation!

The EU Commission bringing the hammer down on them was instrumental in Microsoft losing the "browser wars" and they had to give up their attempts to make the web proprietary and dependent on Internet Explorer.

The mandated "browser ballot" was not all that effective by itself, but their internet strategy up to that point was just no longer feasible and standards-compliant browsers took over, to the point of even Microsoft now using a WebKit fork instead of their own misbegotten monstrosity which has been an ongoing headache for web developers for such a long time!

 

[constructor]

Yeah but Germany isn’t one of them.

I you can only track one issue at a time you might want to widen your field of view a little – governments by definition need to handle tons of different challenges at the same time, and the current german one has actually done pretty decently given the crises at hand.

 

[constructor]

[Laughs in 14 eyes]

Fourteen eyes surveillance alliance explained - SecurityMadeSimple.org

A surveillance alliance is an agreement between multiple countries to share their intelligence with one another. This includes things like the browsing history of any user that is of interest to one of the member countries. Five eyes and Fourteen eyes are two alliances of 5 and 14 countries...

www.securitymadesimple.org

You are apparently oblivious to the fact that secret services / spy agencies in all countries are effectively their illegal arms – ideally only against foreign countries and only against their laws, but especially in democracies it's an always ongoing challenge to keep their tentacles from reaching out to domestic citizens as well.

And it is rightly a scandal in any democracy when that happens – just the protections afforded by the Bundesverfassungsgericht apply only to residents in or just to citizens of Germany, not to foreigners in foreign lands; That is the fundamental principle of all spy agencies!

Democracies, of course, are not supposed to have internal spy agencies (which tyrannical regimes almost always do) and police needs to be under strict legal supervision.

Yes, this is one of the ongoing challenges in all democracies.

And yes, even democracies have been known to misuse their "foreign-illegal" spy agencies to spy on each others' populations and then swapping notes, but again under the rule of law that is illegal and rightfully a scandal when it is uncovered.

Just your blanket conclusion that total cynicism was the only possibly realistic view is still false: It's actually complicated, and in democracies it can't be simple or easy!

 

[constructor]

They are in 14 eyes, kinda hard to be in a giant surveillance group and be into privacy 🤷‍♂️

You don't seem to understand what spy agency collaboration is supposed to be about.

It is perfectly normal, for instance, that NATO member agencies swap notes about Russia, China or other potential or current threats, as an example.

it would be stupid and negligent not to!

Your conclusion from just any collaboration between spy agencies appears to be, however, that this collaboration had to mean that they'd also spy on citizens of their own countries either directly or indirectly outside of oversight or the reach of the respective court systems, and that is false.

Specifically in Germany this would be completely illegal and very much under our courts' jurisdiction!

Of course as with any other crime it needs to be discovered before it becomes a public scandal and a court case, but the illegality of such activities is in no way limited by that!

And german services are limited more tightly in what they can legally do by international law automatically applying as well. So as I've already said: These things are more complicated than ready-made conspiracy theories promise to make them!

 

[constructor]

One thing that is evident from your comments is you have an issue with Apple that seems to prevent an even handed and unbiased evaluation of anything Apple.

I very much appreciate the relatively credible privacy positions and mechanisms Apple takes and makes, I'm just not a blind fanboy which seems to irk you here.

The other thing that is evident is you believe in excessive regulation as a way to correct your perceived inequities in tech markets

The sheer absurdity of that accusation fells itself already.

and it is your first thought for a remedy after, in your mind, you have convicted a company.

I have not "convicted" anyone, least of all Apple.

The app tracking limitation is very welcome and I had that disabled globally long before the install-by-install query was even introduced.

It is also quite evident that in regular apps Apple appears to stick to their own rules.

The iffy parts are just the revenue-generating ads in the App Store apps: For those Apple exploits all the customer data they have about us and that is not much less creepy than what many other apps attempt to do, even granted that at least as far as we know Apple is not harvesting user data from apps etc. but "only" use the data generated by our actual App Store interactions.

This is somewhat less creepy, but it is still creepy and it further undermines the already crappy user experience in the App Store because if any apps are recommended there I have to assume it's because they've bought an advertising slot, not because they actually are what I've been looking for!

This prioritizing of ad buyer interests over my user and Apple customer interests in the App Store is a quality degradation which I don't relish given the prices Apple is charging for hardware and services – they try to have it both ways, and they just can't.

In how far governmental oversight should intervene here is an ongoing debate and I don't have a final opinion there, but having Apple sweating a little there instead of running roughshod over everybody's interests is not unwelcome to me.

The second item is a disease so many in the EU suffer from. Don't like something a business does? Call in the government. They will fix it and restore your version of economic justice.

It is a lot more rational, more consistent and both less negligent and at the same time less intrusive than the US principle of "let corporations run wild and litigation courts can sort through the fallout with more or less random outcomes because we can't be bothered with politically controversial oversight even where it clearly makes sense"!

 

[JoshNori]

Lol this is such a lie. It all boils down to iMessages and iCloud Keychain. They know there’s a complete monopoly on interoperability here, and they’ve done nothing to fix it. Other browsers can’t even access the keychain properly on iOS. They need to fully divorce Safari from iOS. In other words, I should be able to delete it completely.

 

[JoshNori]

You don't seem to understand what spy agency collaboration is supposed to be about.

It is perfectly normal, for instance, that NATO member agencies swap notes about Russia, China or other potential or current threats, as an example.

it would be stupid and negligent not to!

Your conclusion from just any collaboration between spy agencies appears to be, however, that this collaboration had to mean that they'd also spy on citizens of their own countries either directly or indirectly outside of oversight or the reach of the respective court systems, and that is false.

Specifically in Germany this would be completely illegal and very much under our courts' jurisdiction!

Of course as with any other crime it needs to be discovered before it becomes a public scandal and a court case, but the illegality of such activities is in no way limited by that!

And german services are limited more tightly in what they can legally do by international law automatically applying as well. So as I've already said: These things are more complicated than ready-made conspiracy theories promise to make them!

Oh please spare us with the “you’re a conspiracy theorist” nonsense. The proof is in the pudding. Secrets are not exclusively for national security, and there’s no global auditing process. It’s a pitifully simple conclusion that it’s far more likely they’re doing illegal things than they’re not. The fact that you can’t prove it actually supports this notion whereas the logic doesn’t work the other way around!!

 

[bsolar]

Yes, it is actually.

ATT is basically intended to prevent the intermingling of data from different sources. Apple uses only first party day for their App Store ads, so they are technically not violating any of their own rules.

Of course, one can question why ATT is opt-in for competitors while being opt-out for Apple by default, or how ATT seems specifically designed to kneecap Facebook while having minimal impact on Apple’s own data collection. But given that the majority of iOS users already opt out of App Store data collection anyways, Apple likely doesn’t lose much changing it to the other way.

ATT does not operate at the provider level, it operates at the application level. You cannot consent to everything from a third-party provider as every individual third-party application is considered a separate data source and requires its own individual explicit consent for tracking.

Non-biased rules would require Apple to do exactly what third-party providers need to do, which is obtaining explicit consent for tracking for every individual application and service they offer separately.

 

[constructor]

ATT does not operate at the provider level, it operates at the application level. You cannot consent to everything from a third-party provider as every individual third-party application is considered a separate data source and requires its own individual explicit consent for tracking.

Non-biased rules would require Apple to do exactly what third-party providers need to do, which is obtaining explicit consent for tracking for every individual application and service they offer separately.

They are doing that already – Apple's own apps are subject to the same rules, with just one exception:

The App Store app has a specific and inherently different role and there they are trying to make money from user data they have from their customer relation, which is indeed problematic.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The App Store app has a specific and inherently different role and there they are trying to make money from user data they have from their customer relation, which is indeed problematic.

Making money from ones direct customers via the use of data gathered as a part of the regular course of doing business with those customers is not problematic and is “how business happens” (i.e. If I want to sell warranties, I should probably keep their data on file so I can verify that they purchased the service. If a customer has asked that I contact them when I have an item they’d like to buy in stock, I should keep their contact information available). Problematic factors in when the goal is primarily to build a repository of data for the purpose of selling access to.

 

[bsolar]

They are doing that already – Apple's own apps are subject to the same rules, with just one exception:

The App Store app has a specific and inherently different role and there they are trying to make money from user data they have from their customer relation, which is indeed problematic.

Then things must have changed since the regulator started the investigation (emhpasis mine):

Already based on the applicable legislation, and irrespective of Apple’s App Tracking Transparency Framework, all apps have to ask for their users’ consent to track their data. Apple’s rules now also make tracking conditional on the users’ consent to the use and combination of their data in a dialogue popping up when an app not made by Apple is started for the first time, in addition to the already existing dialogue requesting such consent from users.

The Identifier for Advertisers, classified as tracking, which is important to the advertising industry and made available by Apple to identify devices, is also subject to this new rule. These rules apparently do not affect Apple when using and combining user data from its own ecosystem.

While users can also restrict Apple from using their data for personalised advertising, the Bundeskartellamt's preliminary findings indicate that Apple is not subject to the new and additional rules of the App Tracking Transparency Framework.

 

[constructor]

Making money from ones direct customers via the use of data gathered as a part of the regular course of doing business with those customers is not problematic and is “how business happens” (i.e. If I want to sell warranties, I should probably keep their data on file so I can verify that they purchased the service. If a customer has asked that I contact them when I have an item they’d like to buy in stock, I should keep their contact information available). Problematic factors in when the goal is primarily to build a repository of data for the purpose of selling access to.

But that is what they're effectively doing by selling ads based on their customer information, especially since they are distorting search results and recommendations to not fit my queries or actual interests, but the interests of the highest bidders for advertising slots!

That special and privileged position in the App Store is highly problematic.

 

[constructor]

Then things must have changed since the regulator started the investigation (emhpasis mine):

As far as I'm aware they treat their own apps the same, their own apps just don't collect the kinds of data which would need that privacy prompt – same as third-party apps which don't collect user data!

 

[constructor]

Oh please spare us with the “you’re a conspiracy theorist” nonsense.

I can't spare you this label because it clearly fits!

The proof is in the pudding. Secrets are not exclusively for national security, and there’s no global auditing process. It’s a pitifully simple conclusion that it’s far more likely they’re doing illegal things than they’re not. The fact that you can’t prove it actually supports this notion whereas the logic doesn’t work the other way around!!

What you still don't get is that it is the whole purpose of spy agencies that they do the dirty work of violating (ideally) only foreign countries' laws to further the interests of their own country.

Only spying on their own citizens is typically prohibited.

And that is why international oversight of spy agencies is inherently unfeasibly and it is silly to even make that demand.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

But that is what they're effectively doing by selling ads based on their customer information, especially since they are distorting search results and recommendations to not fit my queries or actual interests, but the interests of the highest bidders for advertising slots!

No, they’re not building a repository for profiling (which is the part that’s problematic). One can download a free “music” app, and, as one searches the App Store, the results will not suddenly all be related to music apps when that user next searches for “football”. That’s because Apple’s not tracking at that level. As a result, Apple are limited to selling ads based on “this person has an (x-device) and just searched for ‘bugs’”, instead of, say, “this person googled within the last day for ‘bugs’, have watched 14 bug videos in the last two days, have liked 4 posts today about ‘interesting bugs’ and joined a reddit group for ‘bugs life (not the movie)’ and have previously purchased 8 apps with ‘bug’ in the title.”

There are, of course, those that feel that Apple is problematic just because Apple currently exists as a corporate entity. And, if that’s their thinking, no one can dissuade them of that.

 

[JoshNori]

I can't spare you this label because it clearly fits!


What you still don't get is that it is the whole purpose of spy agencies that they do the dirty work of violating (ideally) only foreign countries' laws to further the interests of their own country.

Only spying on their own citizens is typically prohibited.

And that is why international oversight of spy agencies is inherently unfeasibly and it is silly to even make that demand.

This is a wonderful justification for the violation of human privacy and the progression toward totalitarianism (especially through technology and artificial intelligence). Great job.

If you peel back the onion here, you actually don’t even have a specific perspective that lies anywhere upon the gradient of government overreach vs. individual rights. Rather, you’re presenting an extremist argument that pushes the needle off of the scale into the government extremism category. This implies that you inherently believe we are subjects in some form or another because you find it acceptable that the public remain totally ignorant to what the system has arbitrarily defined is “good for them/us”. This is utterly elitist, and no such natural order exists, only an artificial order based on dominion and exploitation.

In other words, this is the support of plain, legal permissibility of conspiracy itself! Where the government fights in the same arena as the black market and often becomes the other side of the chess board, all in the name of “public protection”. No need to theorize surrounding your open admission to it! Why bother?

Suffice it to say that I disagree wholeheartedly, and the world will always have to fight hard against tyrannical outlooks like this which permit unlimited power and the segregation/descent into the categories of powerful and powerless… all based on ill-gotten, self-anointed “government royalty”!

Some people are still alive and aware enough to see this. Others are obedient, submissive, and attempt to force conformity. Which are you?

 

[constructor]

This is a wonderful justification for the violation of human privacy and the progression toward totalitarianism

No. Just an explanation how things actually work in the real world – and also why rabid ideology does not solve a thing about this.

 

[bgalakazam]

I live in Germany right now. You can't even have Google Maps street view because of "privacy", can't have dashcams that record longer than x, can't record people in public, can't have a security camera that covers public street or neighbors, but you have speed cameras everywhere. Illegal search and seasure? Not if the government does it. Germany is trully a surveilance police state, but they claim privacy when it comes to companies. Worst part is citizens are all for it. They like following rules no matter how absurd. "Zeez ar ze rulz yah" as they say here. 83 million of them blinding following. It's no wonder what happened in the 1930s happened. I live here, first hand account I can see it with my eyes.