Slashdot Mirror


Spanish Football League Defends Phone 'Spying' (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Spanish football league La Liga has defended the privacy policy of its app after admitting it was accessing the microphone and GPS of Android users. It said it had been trying to track down venues illegally broadcasting matches, by matching audio data and phone location. The app, downloaded more than 10 million times on the Google Play Store, has been criticised by fans. La Liga said it wanted to "protect clubs and their fans from fraud." The broadcasting of football matches in public places without a paid licence cost the game an estimated 150 million euros ($177m) a year, it said. The new function was enabled on Friday, 8 June.

86 comments

  1. Kill smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or at least stop downloads APPS APPS APPS all the goddamned time, look at what you people are doing to yourselves?
    While you're at it, kill Facebook, kill Alexa/Cortana/all 'digital assistants', and stop connecting your goddamned 'smart tv' to the goddamned Internet.

    1. Re:Kill smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truth. But we're going to need full access to your phone, computer and house to verify, OK?

    2. Re:Kill smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah no shit. Myopic types like that guy should have cameras and microphones installed in their house and car that monitor them 24/7, and then we'd see how they feel about it.

    3. Re:Kill smartphone by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, nothing to worry about except identity theft, fraud, burglary, car theft, extortion, the physical safety of yourself and your family, misinterpretation of innocent data by governments, employers, insurers and other financial services...

      But sure, nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Right. Good luck with that.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re: Kill smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itâ(TM)s not that we have anything to hide, it is about the right to not have unsanctioned intrusion in our lives.

    5. Re:Kill smartphone by sabri · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just don't do illegal shit and you have nothing to worry about.

      If you're inside a venue that does "illegal shit", you are not liable, and you are not "doing illegal shit". Yet, you justify the invasion of privacy as "nothing to worry about". You, good sir, are a moron.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    6. Re:Kill smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's a myopian; he can't see past the end of his own nose and thinks that bad things happen to 'other people' and not him. Probably types that shit in from his nice safe little man-cave in his nice safe little suburban house in his nice safe little cul-de-sac in his nice safe little suburban all-white middle-America neighborhood, has never had a harsh word said to him his entire life (because he's a Special Snowflake), and thinks he's smarter than everyone else so why shouldn't people automatically listen to him and believe what he says?

    7. Re:Kill smartphone by Calydor · · Score: 1

      You mean like saying your credit card number out loud while entering it in an online form under the assumption that you're ALONE in your living room and your phone IS NOT currently recording everything you're saying because you installed an app to keep track of football matches? Can you tell me which law makes that illegal?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    8. Re:Kill smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, his type has to interact with more of the same and surely a portion of them love to say cruel things to each other. Kids are fucking mean.

    9. Re:Kill smartphone by Wootery · · Score: 1

      stop downloads APPS APPS APPS all the goddamned time

      I agree. Use the web instead.

    10. Re:Kill smartphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and by your sentiment, we can assume that you know each and every single law that is currently on the books? And that you abide by every single one of them, right? right?

      Ignorance is bliss

  2. Guess how many uninstalls are coming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And enabling of Mock GPS positions.

    "Yeah, there's a pub in the Antarctic that's totally pirating your games.."

    1. Re:Guess how many uninstalls are coming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many? A rounding error. Not enough to make any difference to anything.

      If there is one lesson to learn from the last few decades it is that the average phone zombie does not care AT ALL what you do with their device and how much data you scrape from it. They will continue to engage in the same behavior and run the same spyware and log into the same Facebook. No matter how badly those things behave to them.

      if you think people will uninstall it in any significant numbers, you are in for a surprise my anonymous friend.

  3. No problema by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    La deleta...

  4. Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may have been asked before, but isn't this a form of an illegal wiretap? I do not think an EULA would cover domestic or international spying by a corporation even with support of police.

    1. Re:Illegal Wiretap by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This may have been asked before, but isn't this a form of an illegal wiretap? I do not think an EULA would cover domestic or international spying by a corporation even with support of police.

      Huge privacy violation if nothing else. With the EU's strict privacy laws, if listening in on your users randomly is not illegal, it sure ought to be. I hope La Liga gets punished where it hurts, with massive fines.

      This really isn't OK. I don't like apps like Facebook, but what La Liga is doing listening in on a microphone to me is a way worse violation of privacy. I hope La Liga gets kicked in the nuts over this, make an example of them.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been looking for an app that would send all of my microphone audio and location data to La Liga. I was happy to discover that the La Liga App listed the feature that I wanted in the EULA. I want to send this data to them and the app does what I want so where's the problem? If you don't like something from the feature set, then don't install the app.

    3. Re:Illegal Wiretap by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      exactly...if you don't like the feature don't install the app...doh

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    4. Re:Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been looking for an app that would send all of my microphone audio and location data to La Liga. I was happy to discover that the La Liga App listed the feature that I wanted in the EULA. I want to send this data to them and the app does what I want so where's the problem?

      The problem is, you're operating an illegal wiretap, or GDPR's equivalent, unless you've obtained informed consent from everyone in the vicinity whenever you operate it.

    5. Re:Illegal Wiretap by chispito · · Score: 1

      This may have been asked before, but isn't this a form of an illegal wiretap? I do not think an EULA would cover domestic or international spying by a corporation even with support of police.

      It's difficult to fathom that this goes well for them. The EU is hyper-sensitive about privacy (as evidenced by all the hoopla over cookies, which are an order of magnitude less concerning than this).

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    6. Re:Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huge privacy violation if nothing else.

      True.

      Did the app disclose this? They probably did, since the app asks permission to use the mic and the the GPS...

    7. Re:Illegal Wiretap by chispito · · Score: 2

      I hope La Liga gets kicked in the nuts over this, make an example of them.

      You had me until right there.

      NO.

      Applying the law differently to particular, usually more financially liable, parties in order to "make an example of them" only perverts justice. If the law does not scare violators, strengthen the law.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    8. Re:Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the law scare anyone? It's just a bunch of words. It's the punishment that scares people, but usually not until they see an example of what happens to people who violate the law. With limited resources to devote to law enforcement, the best bang for your buck is to go after the most high profile offenders and use them as the example. Ideally, sure, kick all violators in the nuts. But sometimes one big kick will result in enough sympathetic pain to achieve the same result.

    9. Re:Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, the app discloses this to the user. It's does not, however, disclose this to every person around the user whose voice might be picked up, thus it violates GDPR.

    10. Re:Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. They need to be fined into bankruptcy with extreme prejudice. They should not be allowed to recover from this. If they do, then the penalty was not high enough.

      This is not a "make an example of" situation. Companies need to learn that this is NOT OK. It was never OK. The next company that thinks about trying this sort of shit need to know what kind of end result to expect.

    11. Re: Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Surely this must violate the terms of the European GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation). I can't see it being legal to harvest personal information to speculatively trawl through for whatever ends.

    12. Re: Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed I would encourage anyone who installed the App to make a request under the GDPR for what records are held about them, by Spanish Football League.

    13. Re: Illegal Wiretap by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      It has been reported several times that Creepy Facebook also listens in on your mic.

    14. Re: Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And everyone who suspects they were ever near anyone who had the app installed. A recording of their voice could have also been made. I suggest every EU citizen make such a request.

    15. Re: Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess only if the audio fingerprint identifies the third party. Otherwise it is not in the scope of the GDPR. Other laws may still apply. The GPS position is probably transmitted with consent.

    16. Re:Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This really isn't OK. I don't like apps like Facebook, but what La Liga is doing listening in on a microphone to me is a way worse violation of privacy. I hope La Liga gets kicked in the nuts over this, make an example of them.

      Read more carefully, it only turns on the mic when the phone user initiates a report. Its their way of verifying the user isn't just randomly making unsubstantiated reports.

    17. Re: Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been reported several times that Creepy Pedophiles also listen in on people's mics, its called RATing.
      But you already knew all about that since you are Pastor Peen the Pedo.

    18. Re: Illegal Wiretap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creepy Facebook listens in on your mic, you say? Thank goodness I just use regular Facebook, so I should be safe.

  5. One of my favorite things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love when people pretend that the full, purchase price of "pirated" material is what they "lost" due to piracy, as if every single person WOULD have paid, and paid full price, if they couldn't "pirate" it. Sure, you can make whatever argument you like about the importance of paying creators, intellectual property rights, and so on, but the idea that every single person who watched or listened WOULD have paid, and COULD have, had "piracy" not been an option is absurd. A better estimate might be the same proportion of the general population that paid, as a percentage of the total. If 25% of the people paid to watch something, it's a fair guess that the loses due to those who watched (or listened, or read, or played, etc.,) amount to that same percent of the total who watched, so if out of 100 million people, 25 million paid, and 1 million people watched but didn't pay, they didn't lose 1 million times whatever they would have paid, they MAYBE lost about 250,000 times that.

    Unless of course, MOST people watched or listened, etc., and didn't pay, in which case, sure... that might throw off the numbers. Because SURELY there are plenty who would be willing to watch if it were free, (and when they can find a way to watch for free, they do,) but who wouldn't PAY to watch, and if they couldn't watch for free, they simply wouldn't watch. But the people complaining about this are almost certainly acting as if they can safely operate on the assumption that ALL the people who watched for free, WOULD have paid, to inflate the numbers to try to wring every last penny or... Europenny, or whatever, in this case, because like any other for-profit business, they don't care about anything but the money, which on balance, is fine, I suppose, but when they and their owners have millions and billions of Eurodollars or whatever, it's hard to muster a lot of sympathy when a group of poors huddles over a single radio or TV, and watch without "paying" for it. The legalistic interpretation that leaves no room for anything but market forces and uses political power and state violence to enforce rules that benefit them is not really something I can cheer for.

    1. Re:One of my favorite things. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Your semi-desire to have it ("I kind of want it but not enough to pay for it.") is exactly part of the leverage built into the system to generate profits for authors that in turn drives innovation.

      In other words, the authors have the honor of denying you and your semi-desire. No, you don't get to take it under the sophistry that you wouldn't have paid for it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:One of my favorite things. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      the idea that every single person who watched or listened WOULD have paid, and COULD have, had "piracy" not been an option is absurd

      You're right it is. But a non-zero number would have paid for it.

      The legalistic interpretation that leaves no room for anything but market forces and uses political power and state violence to enforce rules that benefit them is not really something I can cheer for.

      When someone expends vast amounts of money to develop a product, who do you think it should benefit? You?

    3. Re:One of my favorite things. by sjames · · Score: 1

      At the same time, they are being dishonest when they claim that everyone who pirated would have paid for it if piracy wasn't an option. In fact, many would have just done without.

    4. Re:One of my favorite things. by sjames · · Score: 2

      Apparently La Liga believes everyone's smartphone is theirs to do with as they please. Are they really any better than the people who violate their copyrights?

    5. Re:One of my favorite things. by farble1670 · · Score: 0

      Apparently La Liga believes everyone's smartphone is theirs to do with as they please. Are they really any better than the people who violate their copyrights?

      So... as long as someone else is doing something bad, in your subjective opinion, it justifies whatever bad, self-serving behavior of your own?

    6. Re:One of my favorite things. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      > I love when people pretend that the full, purchase price of "pirated" material is what they "lost" due to piracy, as if every single person WOULD have paid, and paid full price, if they couldn't "pirate" it.

      Agreed. If it was up to these assholes they would charge you for every eyeball / ear consuming content.

      So when I buy and watch a BluRay does that mean the rest of my family are now magically "pirates" since they consumed the content and never paid for it???

      Funny how piracy is never listed in the Year-End Financial reports under "losses" -- because it is some bullshit, made-up-number pulled out of someone's ass.

      Piracy isn't soley about price -- its about convenience. Some people it convenient to (freely) share. /sarcasm Oh noes! Pirates are the cause of the downfall of society!

      But keep believing in those Imaginary Property Rights! When even a Lawyer starts to present the case Against IP you know the days of artificial scarcity are about to change.

    7. Re:One of my favorite things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention I get to pay for their data collection. Nice.

    8. Re:One of my favorite things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this is about licensing for public broadcasting, not piracy. Flip the page to "Illegal Super Bowl Party." The offenders, justified or not, are businesses using the games to generate revenue, not huddled masses yearning to see goals.

    9. Re:One of my favorite things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not real bright, are you?

    10. Re:One of my favorite things. by sjames · · Score: 1

      What I'm saying is that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

      I am not streaming La Liga at all.

    11. Re:One of my favorite things. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention I get to pay for their data collection. Nice.

      Or, you could unsubscribe and uninstall the app.

    12. Re:One of my favorite things. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Now that everyone knows what they're doing, yes. Many are doing just that.

    13. Re:One of my favorite things. by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      No, you don't get to take it under the sophistry that you wouldn't have paid for it.

      He wasn't saying it's OK to take it. He's saying that some of the people who took it would have skipped it if they had to pay, so the actual losses are lower than reported.

      --
      Nope, no sig
    14. Re: One of my favorite things. by houghi · · Score: 1

      A person told me he saved a Euro by running after the bus and not taking it. I told him he eas an idiot and should run after taxis and save a lot more.

      There is a difference between saving and not spending as there is between not receeiving and loss.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    15. Re:One of my favorite things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. When I steal physical objects, this is precisely what gets me off with the cops: "but officer, I didn't feel like paying for it. And they can't PROVE they would have sold it to someone else at that price."

    16. Re:One of my favorite things. by sjames · · Score: 1

      More correctly, the store lost the WHOLESALE cost. But they actually did have a loss since they can't just poof another one in to existence for nothing.

      But when the "item" for sale is a digital copy, they DO just poof them in to existence. If you download a copy, they don't have to have a stock boy run to the back and get another one to put on the server.

  6. Why Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're already using a shitty Android spyware device. Why would you expect any difference in pricacy from an APP running on it?

    Viva la Windows Phone.

    1. Re:Why Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why cares??? You need better English lessons from the troll factory, Boris.

    2. Re:Why Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Haha. The 3 apps remaining on the Windows phone app store don't spy on you at all.

  7. It's for your own good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are just trying to protect clubs and their fans from fraud.

  8. GDPR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only the Spanish could read English they could follow their own laws: https://www.eugdpr.org/

    Someone watching your half-ass game for free is nott "lost profits". Ever.. It's so stupid these copyright clowns think everyone who waches for free would have paid full retail for their crappy third rate game.

    smdh

    M

    1. Re: GDPR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of shit, petty prosecution for the glory of the copyright gods (and some indiscriminate fining), is usual in Spain. Not so long ago, the local RIAA decided to start spy on weddings and barber shops. I wish I was kidding.

  9. GRDP .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The app, downloaded more than 10 million times on the Google Play Store, has been criticised by fans. La Liga said it wanted to "protect clubs and their fans from fraud." The broadcasting of football matches in public places without a paid licence cost the game an estimated 150 million euros ($177m) a year, it said. The new function was enabled on Friday, 8 June.

    And, I'm sure, spying on users to allegedly prevent fraud is fully compliant with the GRDP, right?

    Pretty sure nobody was told their location and audio would be monitored to protect the revenues of the league. Sounds like these guys may have broken EU law.

    Shit like this is why I'm pretty much over apps ... for 99% of them, they are either just a front to a web-page to sell more ads. I find shockingly few apps offer any actual utility.

    I'm not accepting some asshole corporation suddenly deciding my microphone and location data are theirs for the taking. They can go fuck themselves.

    1. Re: GRDP .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the GRDP requires an opt in for such monitoring.

      But the real bitch is the fines if the organization retained or sold there information.

    2. Re:GRDP .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it's covered by the GRPDUH. According to the league's statement they did not upload audio data, only "irreversible binary data". So there's no private data being collected.

      Maybe some other law applies but it sounds unlikely to be this one.

  10. Uninstall the app. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    problem solved.

    1. Re: Uninstall the app. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oh, you caught me red handed. You known what, I return everything and problem solved".

      I hope these guys become the first example of what a massive punishment for breaking the GDPR looks like.

    2. Re:Uninstall the app. by Toutatis · · Score: 2

      problem solved.

      It is not that simple. You will not install it if you don't want to be spied. But if someone next to you do have that app installed in their phone, its microphone will record you anyway.

    3. Re:Uninstall the app. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, but what exactly are YOU going to do? Nothing? Yup, me either.

    4. Re:Uninstall the app. by Toutatis · · Score: 1

      I agree, but what exactly are YOU going to do? Nothing? Yup, me either.

      Yes, I have nothing to hide. So they can listen to my private conversations as long as I can hear the private conversation of La Liga executives. Or, do they have something to hide?

  11. OH NOES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teh divegrass moneys!!!!!11111

  12. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    huh, some people do 'bad' things... what do we do? let's fucking spy on everyone's gps and microphone!

    genius

  13. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kick in his front door and search his house. he MIGHT have stole stuff from you.

    you can't be sure until you look can you?

  14. Did they pay for the bandwidth? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The app, downloaded more than 10 million times
    [...]
    The broadcasting of football matches in public places without a paid licence cost the game an estimated 150 million euros ($177m) a year, it said.

    Data plan on biggest Spanish carrier is 15 Euro for 1.5 GB. Or 1 Euro per 100 MB. That's probably about the size of the sound samples which would need to be transmitted back each month.

    (10 million devices) * (1 Euro/mo) * (12 months/year) = 120 million Euros a year.

    So the value of the data bandwidth they stole to do this monitoring is probably within an order of magnitude of the purported losses due to piracy. If they want to pay you to run this app to help their anti-piracy monitoring, that's not a problem. But secretly eavesdropping and stealing bandwidth is unethical if not downright illegal.

    1. Re:Did they pay for the bandwidth? by psychonaut · · Score: 1

      Data plan on biggest Spanish carrier [finder.com] is 15 Euro for 1.5 GB. Or 1 Euro per 100 MB. That's probably about the size of the sound samples which would need to be transmitted back each month.

      Let's do the math. State-of-the-art audio codecs, such as Opus, can intelligibly store speech using as little as 0.7 Kb/s. The perceived quality at such rates is terrible, but it may be good enough for the purpose of fuzzy matching to a known broadcast signal. And the device doesn't need to be recording all the time -- it needs to be recording only at or around the known broadcast times. So recording and transmitting a single two-hour game would require only 615 KB. A hundred megabytes is enough to transmit about 15 such games. I don't follow soccer so I have no idea whether or not that's a typical number of games for Spanish teams to play in a month.

    2. Re:Did they pay for the bandwidth? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Hate to defend them but it seems they are using an audio fingerprint, similar to Shazam or Google's music ID system. The amount of data transmitted is very small, certainly not 100MB. Since it's just frequency/time histograms I'd estimate it to be in the tens of kilobytes range max, probably less.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Did they pay for the bandwidth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the logic here is that it's OK to steal if you steal a little bit?

    4. Re:Did they pay for the bandwidth? by psychonaut · · Score: 1

      So the logic here is that it's OK to steal if you steal a little bit?

      I'm not really sure what this has to do with my post. All I was trying to do was to double-check the OP's bandwidth calculations. I wasn't passing judgment one way or another on the practice of surreptitiously using this bandwidth.

    5. Re:Did they pay for the bandwidth? by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      They could be embedding inaudible or maybe even audible sound bites into the background noise which can be detected locally on the phone, so the only bandwidth used would be sending GPS coordinates when a positive match is found. I'm not defending what they did, just giving you an alternative technical solution which doesn't require large bandwidth.

  15. We now have the GDPR, so should be dealt with.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably people did not opt in for this use of their data (and their data bundle), so someone who feels offended should file a complaint. And let there be a fine levied of the same amount (150M Euros), I say. That will teach them.

  16. What if they got a warrant? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    We all have had cases where technology was used to catch criminals. I'd love to find a way to do that without giving companies, governments, or individuals inappropriate powers. I remember working for a company that decided to push a custom update to their app to find a laptop that was stolen out of the office. That was kinda shady, but cool.

    Suppose the Spanish Football League went to the police, and got a warrant to capture the data, made the pap change temporarily, and sent the data to a responsible agency. Then they deleted the irrelevant data and reverted the code change. That might not see so awful. It is a slippery slope though, since they could leave it in. And when an app like Facebook did it, or Android, then we essentially enabled a surveillance state.

    Surely there is a reasonable way to make this possible?

    1. Re:What if they got a warrant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have the "appropriate" power today, aka a warrant. Most articles on / are about power overreach (ex. why is an app doing a broad sweep for piracy without consent). Then again, perhaps what you really need is a football helmet, criminals can't get you in a football helmet.

  17. If you check the Permissions and EULA... by crispi · · Score: 2

    Android Permissions says use Microphone.

    The EULA even says:

    3. USE OF THE MICROPHONE

    LaLiga will enable the microphone of your device, solely if you accept by checking the box enabled for this purpose or the pop-up window emerging in the APP, to find out if you are watching football matches. This information shall be employed to detect fraud in unauthorized public establishments.

    4. USE OF GEO-POSITIONING

    LaLiga can be aware of your location using geo-positioning on your mobile device only if you agree to the box enabled for this purpose, and the window emerging on the APP. This information shall be used to guide you to the stadium and to detect fraud in unauthorized public establishments.

    Proves that people just click "OK".

  18. How is this fraud? by drew_kime · · Score: 1

    I don't see how this "protects" fans from anything. And to the extent that it's protecting the clubs, it's certainly not from fraud.

    Fraud is when you misrepresent something. Their complaint is that venues were broadcasting the real thing.

    --
    Nope, no sig
    1. Re:How is this fraud? by Keith_Beef · · Score: 1

      No, fraud is "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain", according to Google, and that matches my own undertanding of the term.

      The fraud is, for example, a bar is getting the stream of a Liga football match without paying the licensing fee to the Liga, and is then showing that stream on a big screen to bring in more customers who buy drinks.

      I'll play Liga's Advocate for a a minute, here...

      The Liga's argument is that this deprives the Liga of revenue, and assuming that some of this revenue is returned to the clubs whose matches are being streamed this in turn means that the clubs are deprived of revenue. The clubs therefore have less money to pay for stadia and star players, meaning that the matches in the future will be less enjoyable for spectators that they would have been in the full potential revenue had been received by the Liga.

    2. Re:How is this fraud? by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      "wrongful or criminal deception"

      What's the deception?

      --
      Nope, no sig
  19. Re: You FAil It! by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    AI poetry

  20. Liga Verguenza! boycott this app and who build it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fighting piracy is legit but this are Gestapo methods, everyone should boycott this app and screw the Liga soccer league, VERGUENZA!
    Putting it in the EULA doesn't mean anything, you can't do evil things just because you write it in EULA!
    Who thinks this is legit is a lobotomized dumbass.

  21. Re: You FAil It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Human idiocy