this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
287 points (97.0% liked)
Privacy
31914 readers
507 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wonder if their notice is not absolute nonsense. They talk about breaches of their terms of service, which I think can be found here: https://go.he.services/tc/V1/en_GB/tc.html
The terms of service do purport to prohibit 'reverse engineering' of the app, which I think the developer receiving the notice may have done to understand the protocol between Haier's service and the app. However, it looks like the developer is in Germany, and did the reverse engineering for the purpose of creating something that, in a way, competes with the app. According to https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2020/germany/vertraglicher-ausschluss-von-reverse-engineering, contractual provisions in Germany designed to prevent reverse engineering to create a competing independent program after the original is already available to the public are not valid.
Maybe they are saying that the developer is unlawfully interfering with their business by inducing others to breach the contract. However, the terms of service don't appear to say prohibit connecting to Haier's services from a competing act (at least nothing in them I can find).
They don't really clearly define what their problem / claimed cause of action is. Maybe this is just an intimidation tactic against something they don't like, but they have no real legal case - in which case perhaps the community around it could band together to create a legal defence fund, and have Haier laughed out of court.
Disclaimer: Not intended as legal advice.
Edit: And better yet would be if they could find a way to intercept the traffic between the devices and Haier and replace Haier in that protocol. Then there is no option for Haier to try to restrict who can use the servers on their side. I assume the devices have a set of Certificate Authorities they trust, and it is not possible to get a trusted certificate without modifying the device somehow though.