Saw this today and now I’m reconsidering if Boost is right for me. I’m really hoping this is shitty boiler plate that was accidentally copied and over looked because that is some bullshit to say “unless we decide we want to use your personal data for whatever we want”.
I know “legitimate interest” is a phrase from the cookies law but there is no legitimate interest justification for this. My data is my data and I decide who has a legitimate interest in it so advertisers can fuck off, as can Boost if this the direction it’s going.
Edit to say this blew up. I didn’t realise I was kicking as big a hornet’s nest and haven’t read all the comments yet.
To be clear, what I don’t like about this and other provisions in the terms is the language and implications around data use. I’ve no problem with ads being shown - I want developers to get paid for the work they do and that makes it possible for users to have “free” access to software if they can’t afford to purchase.
I also want to add the response from Boost’s dev below to make sure it’s visible. You’ll see that it is boilerplate but required by Google and was present in Boost for reddit. I just hadn’t seen it because I purchased it immediately based on a recommendation. It doesn’t make me happy about it but does remove some doubts I was having about the direction Boost is heading.
I will be purchasing the app to support the dev because I do like Boost but I understand not everyone can afford everything so you’ll see some other suggestions in the comments below that don’t have any ads if you’re not happy with the free version and ads with their associated loss of data privacy.
Dev here.
The dialog and its content is not created by me, it is a standard solution from Google to comply with GDPR and other laws. More info here: https://support.google.com/admob/answer/10114014?hl=en
The consent dialog is also required by Google AdMob to show ads, and it is shown when the ad network is initialized.
When the app launches, first it checks for the remove ads purchase, and if it is not present, it will initialize the ads sdk. The ad network is not initialized if the remove ads purchase is detected.
Boost for Reddit was using the very same ad networks and consent dialog.
I’m sorry, but I’m having a hard time seeing Lemmy Lawyers having better knowledge of GDPR laws than Google, which is the ones showing the consent screen. As others have pointed out, if you don’t want your data tracked by Google (which is mostly too late anyway for majority of people), just buy the app. The dev could make the option to pay a bit clearer, but I’m sure people would complain that a pay screen is shoved in their face instead. Can’t please everyone!
The dev should block all app functionality and tracking if no consent is given. Anything else is in violation of the LGPD and GDPR
You’re joking, right? Big companies try to sneak shit by all the time, because that’s just “the cost of doing business” when caught. That’s why the EU and serious consumer-protecting countries are increasing fines. Google had a whole disinformation campaign against the GDPR.
I’m assuming you’re capable of reading. Both laws are publicly available for you to check.
I totally agree with your first point! Not giving consent shouldn’t be treated as “okay, but we’ll still do it” scenario.
Second and third, I’m not saying I’m trusting Google, I’m saying I’m trusting the EU and all the auditors that target Google (which, by the way, includes us Lemmy Lawyers), meaning the likelihood nowadays that Google isn’t compliant to GDPR, in my view, is next to zero. Way more than if it was some custom consent screen by some arbitrary company. If Google is “sneaking something in” it’s because the GDPR law allowed it via loopholes or different interpretation.
Also, watch your tone, no need to get aggressive. I merely pointed out that Google has more knowledge of GDPR laws than people on Lemmy. People on Lemmy, me included, has varied interpretations of GDPR laws (as is clearly demonstrated in the other sibling replies to my original comment, where they both interpreted it differently in separate clauses), since most are not educated lawyers. Law is all about interpretation, not just reading. So “assuming you’re capable of reading” is quite irrelevant.