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

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.

Comments

And they think that the fine is consequential?

[bogaboga]

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?

Re:And they think that the fine is consequential?

[DavenH]

According to the summary, there's no need to defend it because it's been superceded by GDPR, perhaps because the DPA was indefensible in the context of our tech giants.

Re:And they think that the fine is consequential?

[viperidaenz]

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.

Re:And they think that the fine is consequential?

[Tough Love]

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.

Re:And they think that the fine is consequential?

[Hognoxious]

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.

Re:And they think that the fine is consequential?

[fido_dogstoyevsky]

Do *you* own a government?

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

Zuckerberg thought process

[Presence Eternal]

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

Re:"Maximum"

[Richard_at_work]

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.

Re:"Maximum"

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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

0.8 cents for each user.

[mark_reh]

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