They probably mean for instance the Gov would know when you use Instagram, Facebook etc on your phone.
As the iOS or Android app will be sending requests to Instagram, Facebook etc IP and the Gov will log this.
They could have made the law more general by talking about 'messages' or 'accesses a server'.
They said app used. That genuinely could compel Google or Apple to hand over your usage metrics.
But how?
> As the iOS or Android app will be sending requests to Instagram, Facebook etc IP and the Gov will log this.
That says that I "visited" (in a sense) Instagram, Facebook, etc. - not that I used the Instagram or Facebook app to do it.
I don't think that's a meaningless distinction.
However, the use of the term app is probably more to do with vast usage of apps to now consume the internet. So if you now just use the term "website", many of the general populace (who aren't technical) will think that's fine they won't know because I use apps for Facebook etc.
It's important people know that this covers access through apps. So they simplify the usage of that term.
Technically incorrect yes, but probably a proper description for general readers.
At the very least, they could make a law that would focus most of the energy in hacking those who do try to conceal and protect their privacy. They blindly believe the time trotted motto of "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide."
I Googled some info on Sudafed dosages (specifically interested in pseudoephedrine, even though they changed that to phenylephrine apparently) and half of the links were blocked because they were "adult content".
Well fuckers, if you're blocking information like that, good fucking job. It will not affect anyone but the general population, so it's all good. The Brits are pretty complacent with what the government tells them, compared to many other countries.
"App used"? How? I understand that "website visited" is clearly 'public' even if not recorded by ISPs for the state, but I don't understand how, technically, "app used" is known - unless it means "web application visited", which is of course exactly the same as "website visited".
I saw a very interesting hearing when the Bill was still at committee stage, discussing concerns raised by small and community-run ISPs that although they of course have every intention of complying with the law, it's so non-technical and under-specified that it's not at all clear to them what they need to actually do: precisely what to record, how to store it, what guarantees they need to be able to make (e.g. are they liable if data is corrupted? If they're hacked?) etc.