German Court Rejects Apple's Privacy Policy

redletterdave writes "A German court rejected eight out of 15 provisions in Apple's general privacy policy and terms of data use on Tuesday, claiming that the practices of the Cupertino, Calif. company deviate too much from German laws (Google translation of German original). According to German law, recognized consumer groups can sue companies over illegal terms and conditions. Apple asks for 'global consent' to use customer data on its website, but German law insists that clients know specific details about what their data will be used for and why."

Comments

To be fair

[Vombatus]

It must be hard to ensure that every jurisdiction on earth will be happy with everything that you do

Re:To be fair

[gl4ss]

It must be hard to ensure that every jurisdiction on earth will be happy with everything that you do

it's not that hard. just go by the german definition.

Re:To be fair

[AuMatar]

You don't have to- you only have to make sure its legal in the countries you sell it in. Germans aren't suing because of Apple violating their law in America, they're suing them for violating it in Germany. If you aren't willing to abide by the laws, then don't sell in that country.

Re:To be fair

[Stolpskott]

it's not that hard. just go by the german definition.

But that means that leaving your towel on a sun lounger before breakfast to reserve that sun lounger for your sole use is perfectly acceptable!

As with any other internationalized business, though... either you tailor your offering to match the requirements or lack thereof of local laws in each case, or you put together a "one size fits all" policy that incorporates the strictest interpretation of each element of local legislation in individual countries.
Apple and other international businesses might complain about the complexity of either approach, but that is part of the cost of doing business in an international environment. Suck it up.

Re:To be fair

[hydrofix]

Err.. The European privacy laws are pretty much common sense. Just consider that people have the right to know what personal information is stored of them. If you are open about what information you collect, you should have no problem. But if you want to obscure what information you collect or collect more information than you openly admit, you are going to have a bad time.

Re:To be fair

[Sockatume]

Given that the invalidated parts give Apple permission to do certain things with the data, Apple now has to stop doing those things, or it will be open to legal action.

Re:To be fair

[soccerisgod]

Strawman. You're not responsible for what happens with the data in transit to you, but you are responsible for a) what data you take from your customer (via app on the phone, for instance, reading out the phonebook) and you are responsible for what you do with the data once it has arrived at your end.

Actually, that's wrong. If you are sending the data from your application on the user's device to yourself, you're also responsible for what happens in transit: You could easily crypt the information.

Re:better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The injustice here isn't to Apple, it's to other potential customers. One group of people is needlessly imposing their views of privacy on another group; instead of saying "I don't like Apple's privacy terms, so I don't use them", they say "I don't like Apple's privacy terms, so I am going to prevent you from using them as well".

Wrong. German law says that what Apple is doing is illegal, so they have to stop or they are going to be fined. And please read again what this issue is about. Apple can very well collect personal data and provide services that use them, they just have to inform customers what they are collecting and for what purpose, so the customers can make an informed decision. Their current privacy policy basically says: "We collect whatever data we want, we do whatever we want with it and reserve the right to share it with anybody". That is simply not allowed and has to change, so please enlighten us where you see any injustice.

Re:better idea

[Eunuchswear]

Why should it be on the people? If the company doesn't want to follow their laws, they shouldn't sell their stuff in that country.

It should be "on the people" because some people may not have a problem with policies and may want to do business with Apple anyway.

Absolutely. Everyone should be free to decide which bit of the law of the land they want to follow.

I, for example, can't see why we are not allowed to burn glibertarians in the public parks.

Re:better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to forgive him. He is American, and over there laws only apply to regular people. Not to companies, and especially not to the rich (and Apple is both of those).

Companies can ignore the law all they want, and if someone disagrees, he can stop buying their product.

The whole concept of the law applying equally to everybody is foreign to them. Not that it always work that way in Europe, but it works often enough that we are used to the concept, and don't start arguing against it when it does work.

Re:better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

However, you fuckers need to get bent if you think it's actually possible to comply with those laws at a technical level.

The iTunes store is very good at identifying and limiting access to country specific content, IMHO it is not a technical problem to comply to country specific terms and conditions.

I've no time to check, but ....

[Robert Frazier]

It would be interesting to know whether there is anyone who holds both of the following positions.

1. The German finding is unfair to Apple because Apple, quite reasonably, shouldn't be required to follow the law of every land in which it does business..
2. Criticising Apple for caving in to the censorship requirements of the Chinese government is unfair to Apple because Apple, quite reasonably, should be required to follow the law of every land in which it does business.

Best wishes,
Bob