You realize it is an app on a phone, so the customer is always known, right?

I don’t really understand this comment. What do you mean that the customer “is always known”? To whom? How?

The LALIGA Official App on Android requires permissions to access Personal Information and Device or other IDs to provide services, send notifications, and facilitate registration. It may also involve location data and audio features, though these are not explicitly listed in the permissions. The app also shares your data with third parties and uses your email for the LALIGA Ecosystem.

Specific Permissions and Uses

Personal Information:

The app collects your personal data, such as your email, to allow you to log in, register for services, and provide you with content and information about your favorite teams.

Device or other IDs:

This type of ID is used to facilitate your registration and access to the app.

Location Data:

The app may use your phone's location to identify establishments showing football matches, potentially for a piracy detection feature.

Audio/Microphone Access:

In the past, La Liga has used the official app to remotely activate the microphone to detect audio from football matches, particularly in bars.

▲

d1sxeyes a day ago | parent [-]

It feels like you perhaps didn't understand my comment. I'm not saying that LALIGA couldn't identify you if they wanted. They certainly could (and probably do).

What I'm saying is that it is possible to build a system where the app dispatches some kind of event to a server which does not have any identifying information associated with it.

▲

PeterStuer a day ago | parent [-]

It is always possible. Even if you do not need any permissions to access the AndroidID, nobody forces you, the app seller, to use it.

I have worked as an enterprise integratation architect in highly regulated environments. Sometimes you reuse interfaces that give you tons of info you are not supposed to have access to. You sign contracts that you will never look at this (dump it at the interface layer). This is acceptible in compliance.

Chances that in this case the app does not hover up all it can? 0%

▲

d1sxeyes 10 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s not about “the app”. The app can have two or two million datapoints locally.

What matters in terms of processing is how much of it gets sent to LALIGA (or their provider).

On a separate note, I am surprised you think you can just promise not to look at something. You can’t, it’s not “acceptable in compliance”, and I’m not even sure what that means—there’s no body that certifies GDPR compliance.

▲

PeterStuer 9 hours ago | parent [-]

It is acceptible. I have sat many times through compliance meetings and negotiations. I would think compliance officers of very large enterprises know their game.

	▲	d1sxeyes 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You might think that. But there’s plenty of evidence suggesting you would be wrong. The biggest fines under GDPR have been for Meta, Amazon, TikTok, Uber, LinkedIn. Even outside of tech you don’t have to look too far down the list to find H&M, British Airways, Marriott Hotels, Vodafone… https://www.enforcementtracker.com This example specifically refers to failure to adequately secure systems against unauthorised use: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ETid-2306 This one is even closer to what you’re saying—Vodafone didn’t do enough to monitor third parties working for them: https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ETid-2646