Slashdot Mirror
California AG Gives App Developers 30 Days To Post Privacy Notice
Trailrunner7 writes "California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced a crackdown on mobile application developers and companies that haven't posted privacy policies, at least where users can easily find them. The attorney general is giving recipients 30 days 'to conspicuously post a privacy policy within their app that informs users of what personally identifiable information about them is being collected and what will be done with that private information,' according to a prepared statement. A sample letter defines the issue at hand. 'An operator of a mobile application ("app") that uses the Internet to collect PII is an "online service" within the meaning of CalOPPA. An app's commercial operator must therefore conspicuously post its privacy policy in a means that is reasonably accessible to the consumer. Having a Web site with the applicable privacy policy conspicuously posted may be adequate, but only if a link to that Web site is "reasonably accessible" to the user within the app.'"
Why treat mobile apps as a special case? All software applications, client-side or web based should be treated the same way.
Instead of attaching a sample compliance letter, why didn't the AG attach a sample privacy policy and open source it so that developers can use it?
Pasting in a generic document is much more likely to happen than all those app developers running out and hiring lawyers, so she will either get lower compliance or shoddier privacy policies.
Is it too much to ask that government take the lead in this case? I can't imagine it costs the AG anything, since that office hires a staff of lawyers.
With only 30 days to get a policy written and added to the app, I guess that means that most iPhone apps will not be able to comply.
Don't like it? Stop using the app you paid for!
No refunds. Sucks to be you.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The article contradicts itself. Early in the article, it states that the policy has to be within the app, then later on, it says it has to be in the App Store. There's a huge difference between the two in what it means for app publishers.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
In UKRANE Capitalist Country!!!!! DOES Not apply.
Hahah.
$$$$$
Does this guy expect app developers from other states to comply with the laws of California? What about developers from other countries?
OK, it's official, "app" is known to the State of California to be defined as a "mobile application".
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
I disagree that it's going to be that different. If they need to list different data fields that will be retained, or change a length of time, they can edit the open-source document for their specific needs. But this gives them a template to work from which has all of the lawyerese perfected.
I can't agree that the document will differ in every case. In my experience, the differences will be slight, and thus having an open source document would encourage programmers to adopt a general standard (like a community rule) for how they're going to approach privacy issues.
The result would be a raising of the overall standard to that of the proposed document, which is why it's a good idea to have professionals write it and "promulgate" it.
There's a lot of pushback against bullet points, with people talking about "The Power Point effect," where somehow reading a lot of bullet points turn ordinary people into morons. I'm with you -- I think whatever works to make the simplest and clearest communication is best. Going to the level of memes might be taking it too far, but no one's suggest that yet thankfully.
CalOPPA Gangnam Style!
Permission: Fine GPS position (to verify that you're not in california, so as to not show it)
This just sounds like a really good reason to put in a data field for state when signing up for an app, and exclude Californians from use of the app, and explain to them because over burdening regulations our App is not available in your state, please contact the California Attorney Generals office for more information regarding these regulations. While there a lot of people in California, sometimes it's best to just avoid states or places where your work is not appreciated.
...and doing nothing more than his or her job: to ensure that the state enforces that which by law it must enforce. Period.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Dear California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris:
Go pound sand.
Sincerely,
Someone who doesn't live in California.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
And developers who want to sell their apps in California?
bickerdyke
who's going to do all the policing? Kamala D. Harris?
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Developer doesn't have any stores in California. The California resident has to seek them out.
The law could require Apple or Google to delist any app that doesn't accommodate their laws, but a developer in Kazakhstan or Nevada has no presence in California.
They aren't. The law, as explained in TFS, applies to all "online services".
Unless, as is the case of many out-of-state HQ'd operations, they do. United Airlines and Delta Airlines are examples (and, unlike abstract hypotheticals, are actual recipients of non-compliance notices in this case.)
There is a theory that what you say is true. It isn't, however, the practice.
The enforcement of laws is riddled with favoritism from top to bottom. People will often justify it by saying "But they couldn't have meant it to cover that situation.". Often, however, there is no justification available, but the laws are enforced with favoritism anyway. This is why there is (in the locality I live) a "crime" described informally as "Driving while brown or black." But that's merely an easily observable instance of a widespread effect.
French poet F. Villon once observed "The law, in it's majestic equality, forbids both the rich man and the poor man from sleeping under the bridge." What he ignored is that if the rich man *IS* arrested for sleeping under the bridge, not only is he less likely to be prosecuted, if he is prosecuted, the penalty will be less. (At least proportionally. A $500 fine means a lot less to a rich man than to a poor man.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.