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.

Comments

A wall

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out that it's not the Mexicans paying for the wall after all, but it's Facebook.

To quote Grumpy Cat.

[sandbagger]

Good. They made a fortune off of poisoning the well of civic conversation.

Re:To quote Grumpy Cat.

[jellomizer]

No cable 24 hour news did that. There isn't enough interesting news to really cover a 24 hour news cycle, So they filled 80% of the time with people with editorial opinions. To keep it interesting, we will put in too crazies with diametric opposite opinions so it becomes less of a discussion on important events, but a sporting event of yelling at each other.
Some stations have a political agenda, so they pick guests to make one side seem like they have it in order, while the other size is just a raving lunatic.

For example back in 2003 for the Gulf War, Fox News pitted a Sr. Bush Administration Official, against some college kid, who organized a anti-war protest. After watching that debate, I lost all credibility towards Fox news. Because it was intentionally one sided, and just showed how Stupid those LiBeRaLs are. Because you have an Experienced debater, vs a kid with a strong opinion.

Re:To quote Grumpy Cat.

[RazorSharp]

While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I disagree with your dissent of the OP. The well of civic conversation has been poisoned by several actors and Facebook is one of them. I think the sad irony is that the tools of technology that allow for greater egalitarianism are also the ones that dumb down public discourse. In your Fox News example, we see the rise of cable news networks that will put any argumentative talking heads they can book on TV because they have so much time to fill (and CNN does the same thing: John Stewart's attack on the network while they had him as a guest on Crossfire was an amazing critique of the 24/7 cable news model). Facebook, however, doesn't just give a platform to morons like Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, it gives a platform to everyone. Instead of having the choice between two biased news channels (Fox & MSNBC) and one that somehow manages to constantly screw things up by trying too hard to be objective (CNN) we now social media where people can find even more specific and insular pockets of information.

The internet is a great source for information when one knows how to critically evaluate sources of information. Unfortunately, most people don't know how to do that. As much as I share your disdain for Fox News, it's still a better source of information than InfoWars.

And how much will users of Facebook see?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Go FTC!

[mrwireless]

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.

Fines = bribes

[Quakeulf]

There isn't justice until corporal punishment and prison for life is involved for Zuckerberg and his nearest crew.

I'm surprised the banks are missing their opening

[MikeRT]

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.

Re:But...

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

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.

Re:Please Explain

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Make 10 billion fined 1 billion - profit!

[EnOne]

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