<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
    <channel>
        <title>Field Notes by Benjamin Schürmann</title>
        <link>https://benjamin.schuermann.cc/field-notes</link>
        <description>Insights and reflections on solution architecture, product strategy, and the intersection of technology and regulation.</description>
        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:49:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        <docs>https://validator.w3.org/feed/docs/rss2.html</docs>
        <generator>https://github.com/jpmonette/feed</generator>
        <language>en-US</language>
        <copyright>Copyright © 2026 Benjamin Schürmann.</copyright>
        <item>
            <title><![CDATA[EU Data Act: Auditing My Smart Devices (Part 1)]]></title>
            <link>https://benjamin.schuermann.cc/field-notes/eda-logbook-p1</link>
            <guid>https://benjamin.schuermann.cc/field-notes/eda-logbook-p1</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 16:49:00 GMT</pubDate>
            <description><![CDATA[Objective:]]></description>
            <content:encoded><![CDATA[<span class="v-space"></span>
<div class="theme-admonition theme-admonition-info admonition_xJq3 alert alert--info"><div class="admonitionHeading_Gvgb"><span class="admonitionIcon_Rf37"><svg viewBox="0 0 14 16"><path fill-rule="evenodd" d="M7 2.3c3.14 0 5.7 2.56 5.7 5.7s-2.56 5.7-5.7 5.7A5.71 5.71 0 0 1 1.3 8c0-3.14 2.56-5.7 5.7-5.7zM7 1C3.14 1 0 4.14 0 8s3.14 7 7 7 7-3.14 7-7-3.14-7-7-7zm1 3H6v5h2V4zm0 6H6v2h2v-2z"></path></svg></span>Project Brief</div><div class="admonitionContent_BuS1"><table class="clean-table"><tbody><tr><td style="vertical-align:top;width:130px;font-weight:bold">Objective:</td><td>Audit personal IoT devices to see if manufacturers are complying with the newly active <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/data-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="">EU Data Act</a>.</td></tr><tr><td style="vertical-align:top;font-weight:bold">Target Devices:</td><td>Eufy Indoor Cam Pan&amp;Tilt, Samsung 55" Q95TD QLED 4K TV.</td></tr><tr><td style="vertical-align:top;font-weight:bold">Perspective:</td><td>I am approaching this as a consumer seeking to understand my own data, while simultaneously acting as a Solutions Architect evaluating the delivery approach and the quality of the data entities provided.</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div>
<p>Like a lot of people, my house contains some connected hardware. I know these devices generate a massive amount of telemetry every single day, and for years, I just accepted that the manufacturer owned it. But with the <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/data-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="">EU Data Act</a> now active, the rules have flipped. Legally, the data generated by my connected devices belongs to me.</p>
<p>Out of pure consumer curiosity, I decided to test this. I wanted to see exactly what kind of data is being transmitted out of my living room and how hard it is to get my hands on it.</p>
<p>But because my day job is solution architecture, I can’t help but look at this through an engineering lens. When I ask for my data, I want to see the machinery the vendor built to deliver it. Are they treating compliance as a modern engineering challenge with clean APIs, or just a legal nuisance handled by manual spreadsheets?</p>
<p>Here is the log of my first interactions.</p>
<h3 class="anchor anchorTargetStickyNavbar_Vzrq" id="log-entry-1-the-accessibility-test-finding-the-front-door">Log Entry 1: The Accessibility Test (Finding the Front Door)<a href="https://benjamin.schuermann.cc/field-notes/eda-logbook-p1#log-entry-1-the-accessibility-test-finding-the-front-door" class="hash-link" aria-label="Direct link to Log Entry 1: The Accessibility Test (Finding the Front Door)" title="Direct link to Log Entry 1: The Accessibility Test (Finding the Front Door)" translate="no">​</a></h3>
<p>The first hurdle under the <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/data-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="">EU Data Act</a> is simply figuring out <em>how</em> to exercise your rights. The regulation intends for this to be frictionless. The reality is a mixed bag.</p>
<p><strong>Target A: Eufy (Anker Innovations)</strong>
Eufy makes this entirely opaque. There is no mention of the <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/data-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="">EU Data Act</a> in their privacy policy, no dedicated FAQ, and no portal. To get my data, I had to guess and send an email to their general support address (<a href="mailto:support@eufy.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="">support@eufy.com</a>). For a regulation that demands "easy" access, hiding the process behind a manual email request is a massive accessibility failure.</p>
<p><strong>Target B: Samsung</strong>
Samsung built a front door. They have a dedicated self-service portal (<a href="https://dataact.samsung.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="">Samsung Data Act</a>) and a helpful FAQ section. However, the portal is only available in English, and there is no proactive communication to the user about these rights. You have to know the portal exists to use it.</p>
<div class="architect-note"><p><strong>Architect's Note: Access Patterns</strong><br>
Samsung wins the architectural baseline here. An authenticated self-service portal backed by an asynchronous job queue is the right way to build this. Eufy’s reliance on manual support tickets is unscalable and completely fails the Data Act's requirement for continuous or near-real-time access.</p></div>
<h3 class="anchor anchorTargetStickyNavbar_Vzrq" id="log-entry-2-data-deliverables-analysis">Log Entry 2: Data Deliverables Analysis<a href="https://benjamin.schuermann.cc/field-notes/eda-logbook-p1#log-entry-2-data-deliverables-analysis" class="hash-link" aria-label="Direct link to Log Entry 2: Data Deliverables Analysis" title="Direct link to Log Entry 2: Data Deliverables Analysis" translate="no">​</a></h3>
<p>After submitting my requests, the responses came back quickly—Eufy on the same day, Samsung within 24 hours. But the actual deliverables told two very different stories.</p>
<h4 class="anchor anchorTargetStickyNavbar_Vzrq" id="payload-a-eufy-cam-the-bare-minimum">Payload A: Eufy Cam (The Bare Minimum)<a href="https://benjamin.schuermann.cc/field-notes/eda-logbook-p1#payload-a-eufy-cam-the-bare-minimum" class="hash-link" aria-label="Direct link to Payload A: Eufy Cam (The Bare Minimum)" title="Direct link to Payload A: Eufy Cam (The Bare Minimum)" translate="no">​</a></h4>
<p>Eufy replied with a time-limited link to download a password-protected ZIP file. Inside were a few <code>.xlsx</code> (Excel) files.</p>
<p>As a consumer, the data itself was incredibly disappointing. I received basic account data (<code>user_info.xlsx</code> with my nickname and email) and device identifiers (<code>notification_devices.xlsx</code>). There were no movement logs, no AI detection events, and no network connectivity history. It wasn't device telemetry; it was just my user profile.</p>
<div class="architect-note"><p><strong>Architect's Note: Formats &amp; Interoperability</strong><br>
Providing proprietary spreadsheet formats (XLSX) without any formal schema makes programmatic third-party integration—a core requirement of the regulation—almost impossible. Eufy has zero technical mechanisms to route this data via API.</p></div>
<h4 class="anchor anchorTargetStickyNavbar_Vzrq" id="payload-b-samsung-tv-good-tech-evasive-data">Payload B: Samsung TV (Good Tech, Evasive Data)<a href="https://benjamin.schuermann.cc/field-notes/eda-logbook-p1#payload-b-samsung-tv-good-tech-evasive-data" class="hash-link" aria-label="Direct link to Payload B: Samsung TV (Good Tech, Evasive Data)" title="Direct link to Payload B: Samsung TV (Good Tech, Evasive Data)" translate="no">​</a></h4>
<p>Samsung’s portal allowed me to download my data directly. They provided it in both <code>CSV</code> and <code>Parquet</code> formats, bundled with metadata files. The portal even includes a mechanism to route data to registered third parties.</p>
<p>But when I opened the files, I found myself disappointed. Samsung provided a dataset called "Display Product Operation Data." It contained detailed interaction logs like <code>WELCOMEPAGE</code>, <code>FAVBUTTON</code>, <code>LIVEBROWSERGENRE</code>, but <em>only</em> for their "Samsung TV Plus" software layer.</p>
<p>They completely omitted the raw hardware telemetry. There were no power-on/off cycles, no HDMI source switching logs, and absolutely no logs of external server connections.</p>
<div class="architect-note"><p><strong>Architect's Note: Storage Choices</strong><br>
Delivering data in Parquet—a columnar storage format—is a brilliant architectural choice. It is highly optimized for large, structured telemetry datasets and easily ingested by third-party data lakes. Samsung's infrastructure is solid, but their data mapping is intentionally withholding the actual hardware logs.</p></div>
<h3 class="anchor anchorTargetStickyNavbar_Vzrq" id="action-items-the-escalation">Action Items: The Escalation<a href="https://benjamin.schuermann.cc/field-notes/eda-logbook-p1#action-items-the-escalation" class="hash-link" aria-label="Direct link to Action Items: The Escalation" title="Direct link to Action Items: The Escalation" translate="no">​</a></h3>
<p>My takeaway from this first test is that vendors are playing defense. They are interpreting "product data" as narrowly as possible, handing over sanitized software analytics or basic account info while keeping the raw, behavioral hardware telemetry locked away.</p>
<p>I’m not accepting that. So, I drafted formal notices of incomplete fulfillment to the Data Protection Officers at both Eufy and Samsung.</p>
<p>To force clarity, I am demanding they provide the data in two <strong>strictly segregated datasets</strong>:</p>
<ol>
<li class=""><strong>The Data Act Dataset:</strong> The raw hardware operation logs, motor actuations (camera), physical remote signals (TV), and an exhaustive audit of all server connectivity/network handshakes.</li>
<li class=""><strong>The GDPR Dataset:</strong> Any inferred behavioral profiles, consumer personas, or automated processing logic derived from my usage.</li>
</ol>
<div class="theme-admonition theme-admonition-info admonition_xJq3 alert alert--info"><div class="admonitionHeading_Gvgb"><span class="admonitionIcon_Rf37"><svg viewBox="0 0 14 16"><path fill-rule="evenodd" d="M7 2.3c3.14 0 5.7 2.56 5.7 5.7s-2.56 5.7-5.7 5.7A5.71 5.71 0 0 1 1.3 8c0-3.14 2.56-5.7 5.7-5.7zM7 1C3.14 1 0 4.14 0 8s3.14 7 7 7 7-3.14 7-7-3.14-7-7-7zm1 3H6v5h2V4zm0 6H6v2h2v-2z"></path></svg></span>Preempting the Loopholes</div><div class="admonitionContent_BuS1"><p>If they claim they don't track this data, my notice demands a formal negative declaration stating it isn't "readily available." If they try to claim "Trade Secrets," I reminded them that the Data Act requires them to <em>duly substantiate</em> the specific economic risk of disclosure, rather than using it as a blanket refusal.</p></div></div>
<p>I’ve given both companies 30 days to provide the complete datasets before I escalate the matter to my National Data Coordinator (Bundesnetzagentur, Deutschland).</p>
<p><strong>Next up in Part 2:</strong> I will share exactly how their legal and engineering teams respond to being pushed on the technical details. Stay tuned.</p>]]></content:encoded>
            <category>EU Data Act</category>
            <category>Data Sovereignty</category>
            <category>Regulation</category>
            <category>Compliance</category>
            <category>Data Governance</category>
            <category>IoT</category>
            <category>Solution Architecture</category>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>