Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Settlement With FTC Could Run Into the Billions (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: Facebook and the Federal Trade Commission are discussing a settlement over privacy violations that could amount to a record, multibillion-dollar fine, according to three people with knowledge of the talks. The company and the F.T.C.'s consumer protection and enforcement staff have been in negotiations over a financial penalty for claims that Facebook violated a 2011 privacy consent decree with the agency, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private. In 2011, Facebook promised a series of measures to protect user privacy after an investigation found it had harmed consumers with its handling of user data. The current talks have not yet reached the F.T.C.'s five commissioners for a vote and it is unclear how close the two sides are to wrapping up the nearly 11-month investigation. The commissioners met in mid-December and were updated by staff members that they had at that point found considerable evidence of violations of the 2011 consent decree. The FTC investigation into Facebook began after it was reported that the information of 87 million users had been harvested by a British political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, without their permission. The agency could seek up to $41,000 for each violation found.
Data collected as designed is more accurate.
Turns out that it's not the Mexicans paying for the wall after all, but it's Facebook.
Good. They made a fortune off of poisoning the well of civic conversation.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
Oh yeah, that's right. Privacy violations mean the government gets paid, not the people which were actually harmed by having their information leaked / stolen. Par for the course in the USA. I'd love to get even a percentage of those $41000 per violation.
And given the track record of the FCC lately I can't with certainty claim that I'd know who'd be paying who.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The FTC has been 'woke' on this issue since 2014 when they released a pretty good report on the goings on in the data broker market:
https://www.ftc.gov/system/fil...
They requested information from 9 databrokers, and explained things most of society still doesn't grasp like:
- It's not about 'your data'. Your raw data is turned into scores, and those scores are what is being sold. This 'derived' or 'inferred' data is what we should be talking about.
- Most of the money made from profiling is not made from advertising, but from selling 'risk management' products. The hundreds of scores the databrokers developed are sold to banks, insurers, employers. Cambridge Analytica's psychological profiles were once example of this algorithmically derived data.
- Databrokers sell a lot of data to each other too. This means you get scores.. which are sold and then aggregated into new scores.. which are then aggregated into new scores. Basically, there is no end to how long you can store data on people as long as you keep regurgitating and transforming it. Think of it like data whitewashing.
Because databrokers sell the derived data, and not the original data, there is little keeping them from scooping up data from leaks and feeding that to the algorithm too.
What Cambridge Analytica was, was the first glimmer of awareness with the larger public that the narrative of 'we create profiles to show you more relevant adds' is a only half the story, and it's diverting from what's really going on.
This is only the tip of the ice berg.
What's a few billion to Zuck?
I think we all know the King of all Herpa Derps is on that particular platform.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
FB instead of its insurance company paying billions, should be prevented from charging for advertising for data displayed in the USA for a period of 4 years.
The monetary penalty hardly discourages bad behavior. A find of this type is a 1 quarter and 1 annual report item.
It does nothing to correct this behavior.
My state's bank examiners would shut down a single branch bank if that bank knowingly allowed a third party to get the names, addresses, birth dates, interests, hobbies, political views, etc. of most of its customer base without getting prior explicit consent from the customers.
Being a large company with good insurance and deep pockets does not exempt said company from being forced out of business by government penalties.
It only takes the shutdown and fire-sale of assets of one big company to correct this problem.
Kickstarter anyone to lobby for future such government actions to correct the problem instead of making fines just a cost of doing business?
There isn't justice until corporal punishment and prison for life is involved for Zuckerberg and his nearest crew.
Good! Who cares?! As long as the penalty money doesn't go towards any kind of steel slat fence thing, it's all good.
Personal data capture, analysis and sharing is part of Facebook DNA.
Hopefully the fines will hit where it hurts and cause a re-evaluation of culture.
It really shows how little imagination that Wall St has that no one has gotten the idea to support Brave's business model, particularly on their patron side, to help push a shift toward ultra-cheap micropayments for content. The banking sector has A LOT to gain by promoting the aggressive burn down of the advertising economy in favor of people paying for content, yet no one seems to want to do it as a long-term play that fundamentally shifts the Internet funding ecosystem into their laps.
If I were a big wig, my plan would be to get the tech in place and then create an astroturfing campaign to get products like AdNauesum installed on so many users' PCs that the advertising networks cannot handle the feedback and lose customers. Then sit back and laugh as content providers have to sign up for the patron model that just so happens to send 5-10% cuts to us.
Probably they did, but what I am not seeing in this thread is the bunch of trolls that were badmouthing the EU when it did the same a month ago.
Please explain why anyone needs a million dollars. Or a thousand?
How the F is it any of your business what other people earn? I'd rather billionaires exist than have people like you deciding how much of my own money I should be allowed to keep.
1. Do something illegal or semi-legal and make 10 billion
2. Get caught and say your sorry, really, really, sorry
3. Get fined 1 billion
4. Roll around in the 9 billion left over
5. Avoid taxes since the 1 billion in fines is a deductible loss
Now that you've been caught, find new illegal or semi-legal thing to make 10 more billion and repeat
Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
a 2011 privacy consent decree with the agency, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private
Is the investigation of privacy consent decree violations covered by the privacy consent decree? WTF?!? Who writes these regulations?!?
Hey, I'm one of those people bad mouthing the EU for the fines...
Looks like it just took the FTC a while longer to get on this revenue stream.
Holy shit, who pooped into your breakfast cereals?
Talk about an overreaction to a cheap joke!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The federal government is the worst at invading privacy ... and these people are going after FB for it?
Why someone needs a billion dollars.
Thank you.
Because that bit of rhetoric us used by nasty, power-hungry people to neuter other powerful people. And more accurately, to get "donations" to stop interfering.
Much of the world is run this way. Have you brought an "extra" $200 to the DMV recently so you didn't have to wait 2 years for a driver's license?
The rhetoric is meme cover for the reality behind the scenes. Often ultimately for fractions of a penny on the dollar of inflicted burden.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The yacht created jobs that paid more taxes, as the government found out when it added, then removed, a luxury yacht tax.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
As compared to the value of Amazon, it's merely a cost of doing business, rounding error. Perhaps someone could work with the state where Amazon is headquartered and take action to revoke their corporate charter. Extreme, most definitely. However, to fine a corporation of Amazon's size with an amount that has little to no effect on the leadership, or their share price makes the whole exercise a joke. Alternately, go after individuals at the top of the corporation (Sr. Leadership, and the Board of Directors) to prove personal malfeasance and send them off to a SuperMax. There's a really messed up part that recalls the episode of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History entitled "Painfotainment." I guess the real question beneath this dark muse is one of what makes up a sufficient deterrent? At what point do intelligent, but sociopathic individuals deserve the full force and power of the state in its most extreme form? I do not like seeing people suffer, and I don't like anyone make people suffer, but there has to be a way to stop corporations from committing financial and identity rape. Some dumb kid gets 20 years for smoking a joint or robbing $20 from a liquor store. These guys gut the economy, and deprive millions of individuals of a livelihood, and leave their victims open to black hats, including real robbery, not to mention blackmail, and possibly home invasion. At some point there needs to be an honest calculation of the damage done to their victims. I agree with the poster above who said "Make 10 billion fined 1 billion - profit!"
The FTC is just trying to grab a handful of the cash before the European countries grab it all.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
You forgot the support for the new antisemites.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
He allowed a Trump associate to use the same facilities that Obama did. Unforgivable.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
He allowed a foreign 3rd-party, corporate, for-profit, non-government entity beat them to figuring out how to maximize the features of the platform.
Probably not rightfully back to the people who were violated. Most likely into the government so they can squander it with corrupt politicians and corporations as usual, right?
http://gamehacking.org/vb/threads/12747-nensondubois-codes http://twitter.com/nensondubois_