Hacker News Reader

Comment by goobatrooba | Hacker News Reader

I think your take is a bit unbalanced

1. You cannot expect a public body to take a legal conclusion with significant financial impact on the basis of a single citizen report or in reply to that report. This takes analysis, technical and legal work, etc. So your expectation that they respond to your message eith something akin to "of course, you provide evidence of a breach. I, the single case officer responding, confirm the facts are true. Thanks for telling us we will now fine them 5 billion" is a bit unreasonable.

2. I don't see how even inadequate application and a non-committal response leads to the conclusion that this is intended to (or even just allows) to entrench the Android/IOS duopoly.

View on HN

> You cannot expect a public body to take a legal conclusion with significant financial impact on the basis of a single citizen report or in reply to that report. This takes analysis, technical and legal work, etc. So your expectation that they respond to your message eith something akin to "of course, you provide evidence of a breach. I, the single case officer responding, confirm the facts are true. Thanks for telling us we will now fine them 5 billion" is a bit unreasonable.

Both judging or supporting are conclusions. The message is more supporting than necessarily required and that also can have a significant financial impact. If there is even some unclarity, they should just state that they are investigating it, while noting that DMA may allow this. Otherwise this creates foothold for Google, which is not fair either.

>We have taken note of your concerns and, while we cannot comment on ongoing dialogue with gatekeepers, these considerations will form part of our assessment going forward.

It hasn't happened yet, so a fine would not be in question.

Regarding (1): I don't see why you cannot expect it. If the matter at hand is significant enough, all it should take is a single person spreading the awareness of something going terribly wrong, like in this case.

I find it rather infuriating, to get treated like a low rightless peasant, as if to say: "How dare you speak to us above?"

It is the difference between people doing their job and being transparent about it. An answer like: "Thank you for reporting, we currently are already looking into this and are taking your report serious. Please note, that drawing legal conclusions takes time, but that we will keep you updated, when we reach a conclusion." would already be great. To know, that one didn't just waste ones time, but that actually people there hear and look into things.

That is, assuming, that there actually is something significant at hand. If it's rubbish, then no need to get processes started.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com