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.

31 of 62 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. Re:HAHA by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Almost a penny a person affected seems entirely reasonable.

      --
      I come here for the love
  2. 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 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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%

    8. 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.

    9. 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?

    10. 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."
    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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!
  7. 0.8 cents for each user. by mark_reh · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  8. 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"
  9. Re: Misleading Headline by Malc · · Score: 1

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

  10. 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
  11. Re:"Maximum" by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

    Aha. Thank you.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.