Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Fined Maximum Legal Amount For Cambridge Analytica Scandal (deadline.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the symbolic-fines dept.

Facebook has been fined $645,000 by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office for its role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which affected over 80 million users. "The fine was served under the Data Protection Act 1998," reports Deadline. "However, this was replaced earlier this year by an updated version of this law, which alongside the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, meaning that Facebook could have been served a maximum fine of 17 million British pounds or 4% of global turnover." Deadline reports: The ICO's investigation found that as a result of Facebook allowing personal data to be given to app developers, Aleksandr Kogan and his company GSR was able to harvest the data with some of this information shared with organizations such as Cambridge Analytica parent company SCL. It noted that event after the misuse of the data was discovered in December 2015, Facebook "did not do enough" to ensure those who continued to hold it had taken adequate and timely remedial action.

62 comments

  1. HAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    $600,000 ahahahha. Man Zuckerberg is going to laugh his ass off all day long. That is chump change.

    1. Re:HAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      $600,000 ahahahha. Man Zuckerberg is going to laugh his ass off all day long. That is chump change.

      You are strongly suspected of faggotry and níggerdom. You must now fellate a very large (14 inch or bigger) nígger penis or stand accused and convicted of being a racist and a homophobe, which would result in every libtard getting you fired, hating you, doxing you, etc.

      Repent! You are most welcome. It's for your own good. For Tolerance!

    2. Re: HAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the catch?

    3. Re:HAHA by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. It's pointless and annoying when companies are caught and the fine is far less than the profit gained. Fortunately we have the GDPR now so fines are going to get much much heavier. The rule of law is important though so we'll see weedy fines for crimes dating back to the time on the older laws for a while yet.

      That sucks badly and it sucks badly that the old rules were so pathetic, but it's much, much worse retroactively changing the law.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:HAHA by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Almost a penny a person affected seems entirely reasonable.

      --
      I come here for the love
  2. How will Facebook survive such a steep fine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somewhere beneath its $8,000,000,000 dollars from last year Facebook's accountants are trying to figure out where they misplaced that measly $645,000

    1. Re: How will Facebook survive such a steep fine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems fair. After all, the willful abuse of information, theft and illegal forwarding of personal data has been punished by almost a US penny per person. I mean, it's not like a regular person would be fined thousands of dollars for illegally copying the data, say a publicly published song, of a major corporation. Fair and reciprocal punishment is the very bedrock of civil society.

  3. And they think that the fine is consequential? by bogaboga · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook has been fined $645,000 by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office for its role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which affected over 80 million users.

    Now I believe that governments don't really think. How can a several billion dollar company, ($15b in net income -2017), be fined less that 0.04% of profit?

    Can someone defend this position? does it make sense?

    1. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by DavenH · · Score: 2

      According to the summary, there's no need to defend it because it's been superceded by GDPR, perhaps because the DPA was indefensible in the context of our tech giants.

    2. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      It makes perfect sense if you believe the astroturfers' story that Facebook only earned a grand total of $50,000 on this schadenfreude over the course of the following years, and that it was the single sole only incident of any sort of abuse of this level of access to their users' data.

    3. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because that's what the old laws said?
      Did you not read the bit in the summary where it says the law has been updated?
      You get prosecuted against the laws that were applicable at the time.

    4. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one's mad about CA because data was leaked, they're mad because of the tangential association with Trump. Pretending it's about privacy just hides their political pettiness.

      Why should anyone waste time being pissed about some small, random consulting firm seeing personal data when Facebook itself has total access to all of it and a long history of being ready, willing, and very able to exploit it in creepy and evil ways. The problem is that the data is being gathered at all, not that it leaked.

    5. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The fine itself is inconsequential. What is not inconsequential is the mechanism for fining, and as the article pointed out, the next one could well be based on global revenue. When based on a percentage of global revenue as is often the result with EU cases, it can go way higher than the 17 million pounds mentioned. There is a history of fines in EUR multi billions. Not a great idea to be flip about this one.

      Another thing that is far from inconsequential is the public rebuke.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    6. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Do *you* own a government? No? So there.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    7. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      i don't think fines should be based on the company's revenue. Fines should be based on the damage caused. WIth your theory they should have been fined millions if not billions if they did something against 1 user or 1 billion all the same.

      --
      Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
    8. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      How can a several billion dollar company, ($15b in net income -2017), be fined less that 0.04% of profit?

      It's even worse than that, since you're off by an order of magnitude: $646,000 / $15B ~= 0.004%

    9. Re: And they think that the fine is consequential? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      That's equivalent to a person getting caught speeding at 100mph through a school zone, drunk off his ass... and getting fined $0.15.

    10. Re: And they think that the fine is consequential? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We should all sneak into your house and steal a penny each or do a penny's worth of damage to your house. After all, the punishment will only be a penny at most. What's the harm if seven billion people each do only a penny worth of damage to you?

      Is that what you meant, or would you like to amend your previous statement?

    11. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      There is a history of fines in EUR multi billions. Not a great idea to be flip about this one.

      Of course if the fine had been in that ballpark the usual subjects would have been frothing about liberal gay cake baking eurofaggots hating murcan businesses and so on.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      How about a compulsory compensation payment equal to 10% of the impacted users income.
      And if they are unable to pay, a 3 year minimum prison sentence for the CEO, COO, etc.

      THAT will give the victims compensation AND force these companies to actually give a damn.

      Just think, if your information was given the same weight a music track they would have the potential for an $800 Billion fine and prison time.

    13. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes perfect sense if you believe the astroturfers' story that Facebook only earned a grand total of $50,000 on this schadenfreude over the course of the following years

      Here is my problem with this:
      While I do believe that Facebook earned a lot more than that I also don't doubt that they would do it for way less.
      Since some of Putins pals own a lot of shares in Facebook they are probably willing to do it at a loss.

      It might be unethical, but a dollar is a dollar.
      The market doesn't regulate itself, if murder wasn't illegal there would be plenty of companies that would do it. (Well, Academi probably does it despite it being illegal.)

    14. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't think fines should be based on the company's revenue. Fines should be based on the damage caused.

      The problem with that is that the damage caused in this case is more than Facebook can afford and driving Facebook into bankruptcy would be widely unpopular.

      Also, for a lot of things like speeding there is no damage caused until you crash into someone.
      Then there is the thing where fixed fines or fines based on damage means that it isn't illegal for rich people so it only works where money sufficiently compensates for the damage.
      If we go down that route we need to make company owners personally liable for non-monetary damage caused by companies.
      I can't say that I am opposed to that idea. It would probably put most of them in jail.

      The main reason we have fines based on companies revenue is that it is a deterrent and a punishment for illegal behavior, not a "cost of operation".
      We don't use fixed fines because we want the company to stop doing what they are doing, not take the cost into consideration.
      The intent isn't that they should pay the fine, it is that they shouldn't engage in illegal activities to begin with.
      The way to make them stop is to raise the fine if they continue.
      If 4% doesn't work, raise it to 40%
      No company is actually going to pay that much, they are going to stop before the fines get there.
      If they don't stop the fines will be of a size that is the equivalence of capital punishment for companies.

    15. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by fido_dogstoyevsky · · Score: 2

      Do *you* own a government?

      Well... yes. A share in one, but yes.

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
    16. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In terms of fines in the UK, it's about the privacy breach, and the UK is quite proactive about applying fines, they just haven't been very high until GDPR (from the EU, but there was seen to be no point changing UK law when GDPR was coming).

    17. Re: And they think that the fine is consequential? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Nobody can do that. Tgat is why the GDPR has higher fines.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    18. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Facebook has been fined $645,000 by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office for its role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which affected over 80 million users.

      Now I believe that governments don't really think. How can a several billion dollar company, ($15b in net income -2017), be fined less that 0.04% of profit?

      Can someone defend this position? does it make sense?

      Fines are meant to be punitive, but not debilitating. They're meant to discourage bad or abusive business practices without discouraging business. If you were to fine them 100% of their revenue you'd find that more than a few businesses would pull out of your nation due to extreme risk. Not just the bad one's either, your countries political and judicial system will be considered a risk to respectable businesses.

      Also, fines can be issued again and again. If Facebook thumbs their nose at this, laws will be changed.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    19. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Can someone defend this position?

      Yes: much as it stinks, retroactively changing the law is incredibly dangerous. The law as it was written when the crime occurred had stupidly small fines. The law as it is written now would allow a fine of about $2 billion or so I believe.

      The old law was written in 1998 when this kind of thing just wasn't an issue, and as usual laws are generally written to fix today's problems, but tomorrow's. That's usually a good thing because the future is hard to predict.

      Eventually, tomorrow happened and the laws weren't updated for far too long until the EU stepped. As usual the EU is slow but definitive and tends to act only when the member states can't manage to sort themselves out on their own. Again that's a somewhat reasonable position too: local problems after best solved locally and so it's better for the EU to be somewhat conservative rather than impositional.

      Finally, the law is usually a giant game of whac-a-mole. Most laws come about as a result of a pressing need rather than people sitting round inventing new ways for things to be illegal. That's also not a bad idea because no one wants random busybodies interferingand also the problems are only clear when they're present rather than imagined. It's hard enough to avoid unintended consequences with actual problems, never mind invented ones.

      So, I can't defend it from a general moral point of view, but it's the result of a sequence of entirely reasonable steps. Not optimal steps, but reasonable: they've proven to be a robust way of building civilisations over the years and while they're not problem free, alternatives have proven worse.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re: And they think that the fine is consequential? by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      my comment stands. the damage you would have caused is not 1 cent. it would be one cent plus whatever monetary sum a jury would award for breaking and entering and the trauma caused. i'm sure i am forgetting more laws that you would have broken.

      even without taking this into account, i would still get my seven billion back. and then some

      --
      Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
    21. Re:And they think that the fine is consequential? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're meant to discourage bad or abusive business practices without discouraging business.

      Fines don't discourage business. They discourage criminal behaviour.

      If you were to fine them 100% of their revenue you'd find that more than a few businesses would pull out of your nation due to extreme risk.

      There's no risk if you obey the law.

      Do you think businesses do palpably & egregiously illegal acts by accident?

  4. For Perspective... by Tavor · · Score: 1

    For reference of just how small a punishment this is to Facebook, 645,000 divided by 80 million is 0.0080625. Less than one cent (GBP? Euro?) per affected user.

    --
    Windows has detected an undetectable error.
  5. Zuckerberg thought process by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 2

    Hmm, I have less money than I thought I did.
    What happened?
    Oh, that's right, I forgot.
    I impulse bought Australia last week.

    1. Re:Zuckerberg thought process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's weird though, because if Facebook is fined a lot by other countries, this actually affects the US a little bit. A lot of mutual funds have heavy investment into Facebook's stock. So, by fining huge companies, it actually hurts out own accounts a little bit. But... we should keep companies accountable. Hrm, confusing incentives/disincentives.

  6. One wonders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What might be the penalty for repeated and persistent offending? Facebook has and arguably does sell the user data to anyone.

  7. Misleading Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    âoe...Facebook could have been served a maximum fine of 17 million British pounds or 4% of global turnover...â

    Sooo, Facebook was *not* fined the maximum legal amount.

    Editor?

    1. Re: Misleading Headline by Malc · · Score: 1

      Yes they were. Read the story again. Hint: it depends when the crime was committed

  8. Enlighten me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still flummoxed by what supposed "crime" was perpetrated. Throughout this whole hysteria, I'm at loggerheads as to what was the "wrong".

    1. Re:Enlighten me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I'm still flummoxed by what supposed "crime" was perpetrated. Throughout this whole hysteria, I'm at loggerheads as to what was the "wrong".

      That's easy.

      The CA/FB story was only a thing because the data *may* have, very tangentially and marginally, helped the Trump campaign, although many sources state that the Trump campaign never actually used the data.

      Still, it was linked to Trump by the MSM and Leftist political activists (but I repeat myself) so heads must roll and fines must be levied. The Democrats and Clinton had unprecedented access to FB user personal data but that's OK because they're the 'good guys' and anyone with differing opinions are Nazis so the ends justify the means.

  9. The blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should the blame go to Facebook... or the people who USE facebook?

    Facebook wouldn't exist without endless supplies of people dumb enough to use it in spite of the endless stream of shit that it foists on the world.

    Seriously at what point is it reasonable to expect people to say, "Enough"?

  10. Sharks smelling blood in the water by jwymanm · · Score: -1, Troll

    You guys are pretty much all the same. Socialist pro government hail fining the big boy for a stupid frigging api that could've and was used by everyone. Why do you hate companies, just because they have money? Guess what the government has far more than Facebook and who wins in this? Yeah. Not the consumer. Th is crap towards a smaller company (which I am sure there are tons and will be tons that do something similar but with less customers.. heck I remember even working at a few of them where api's could request ANYTHING.. just it was the get it done mentality) would shut it down financially. We're telling the government they should be allowed to govern 1s and 0s. How about show some restraint and don't use public free services that share your data WITH YOUR KNOWLEDGE? Use one of the million private ones and switch if they suck. Stop being so damn lawsuit happy. In the end it really was 1 penny per Facebook customer.. that is what your data is worth ultimately since every frigging Internet company already has it.

    1. Re:Sharks smelling blood in the water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am nut surprised that you don't like the government. You keep voting for the people who screw you over the most.

      Unlike you we vote for people who work for us instead of against us.

      Maybe think about that next time you vote?
      If you did some more research about the people you vote for you too could get a government that you don't have to hate.

  11. "Maximum" by sacrilicious · · Score: 0

    Facebook Fined Maximum Legal Amount For Cambridge Analytica Scandal

    Facebook has been fined $645,000

    Facebook could have been served a maximum fine of 17 million British pounds

    Huh?

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    1. Re:"Maximum" by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you don't selectively quote, it makes sense.

      If you selectively quote, you can make anyone say anything you like, or simply get yourself confused because you removed important context. Such as in this case.

    2. Re:"Maximum" by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Informative

      FB was fined645k. That's insane, so the law was changed. Next time it will be 17MM

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:"Maximum" by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      Aha. Thank you.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    4. Re:"Maximum" by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      I get that you're saying I left something important out. I believe you. But not knowing what that important thing was, you didn't help me understand at all. Just letting you know, in case your intent was somehow to actually help.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    5. Re:"Maximum" by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      You understood the sentence enough to selectively quote the bits that pushed your agenda, but you don't understand what you left out was just as important? Nice troll.

    6. Re:"Maximum" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which agenda was that, wanting the article to not be self-contradictory?

  12. It costs them more money to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    write the check

  13. 0.8 cents for each user. by mark_reh · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's sure to deter them from allowing it to happen again!

    1. Re:0.8 cents for each user. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is why they law was changed so that next time the fine will be more substantial.

  14. In other words by eclectro · · Score: 1

    Zuckerberg had to dig for some change in his couch.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  15. Maximum Amount? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, either the law stipulates a max fee of $0.008 per person/violation in this scenario, is counting all counts as a single one, or some other combination of stupid.

  16. Re: It's simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's simple: We should all take Zuck to small claims court for our 8 mills ($0.008).

  17. Pathetically Small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This fine is so small as to encourage repetition, sadly.

  18. More zeros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This number needs at least four more zeros on the end if not six. Shame on those who reduced the penalty.

    A fine like this wouldn't even cover the cost of a decent dinner for the board. Why would anyone think it might hurt enough to create a behavioural change? At this level, it becomes a cost of doing business.

    Percentage of gross revenue is the *only* way to hurt companies this large.

  19. That's the thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was the supposed "crime"? I'm still perplexed at what is was.

    1. Re: That's the thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignorance is no defence from the law

  20. UK can learn from Finland by NewYork · · Score: 1

    In Finland and Switzerland, speeding tickets are calculated on an individual basis depending on a person's income https://twitter.com/spectatori...

    --
    Casteism
    1. Re:UK can learn from Finland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, punish those guys for being successful! Socialism at its finest...

  21. Chump change for Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a amount that will give Facebook any grief financially. Yet the EU fines Google a whole lot more for its mistakes. I am thinking the UK must have given Facebook a pass for some reason given this amount basically is a slap on the wrist.

  22. 645 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fine should be 645 million. Even 17 million is not enough.

  23. Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why weren't they fined when the Obama campaign hoovered up the contact details of everybody and their uncle?