'Digital Gangster' Facebook Intentionally and Knowingly Violated UK Privacy and Competition Rules, British Lawmakers Say (washingtonpost.com)

British lawmakers on Sunday accused Facebook of having "intentionally and knowingly violated both data privacy and anti-competition laws" in the country, and they called for investigations into the social media giant's business practices. From a report: The sharp rebuke came in a 108-page report written by members of Parliament, who in 2017 began a wide-ranging study of Facebook and the spread of malicious content online. They concluded that the United Kingdom should adopt new regulations so lawmakers can hold Facebook and its tech peers in Silicon Valley accountable for digital misdeeds. "Companies like Facebook should not be allowed to behave like 'digital gangsters' in the online world," U.K. lawmakers said in their report, "considering themselves to be ahead of and beyond the law."

Comments

Summary/Article disagreement

[Brett Buck]

It says right up front that they "knowingly violated" laws, but in the actual content, they are talking about passing laws to hold them accountable. It's far from clear that this is not a case of someone wanting to declare something "illegal" trying to make it true, ex post facto.

        If there are already laws they are breaking, then you don't need new ones. Not to mention that this smacks of another EU-style shakedown, where people take the existing situation at Facebook, Google, etc, and then pass laws against it, then immediately demand them "pay their fair share" for breaking these laws (that we passes last week).

Re:Summary/Article disagreement

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

You find "contradiction" where there is none. It is obvious what is meant - Facebook both violated current laws, and has done things which point to the need for new regulation that will prevent further attacks on privacy and further damage by irresponsible Internet advertising outfits pushing for money outright lies that disrupt the rational public discourse. Only your pretend anger at the "EU shakedowns" is preventing you from seeing the obvious. Besides, this is a uniquely UK shakedown, and the new laws will probably be passed in a place that is outside the EU.

Incidentally, you did not feel the same way about the "FTC shakedown" (https://tech.slashdot.org/story/19/02/15/0522203/facebook-settlement-with-ftc-could-run-into-the-billions), so one cannot help but think that you're not against "shakedowns" in principle, but just against shakedowns by the countries you convinced yourself you don't like.

Re: Summary/Article disagreement

[cyber-vandal]

You mean a court case where Google were found in violation of existing EU law.

Re:Summary/Article disagreement

[Cederic]

this smacks of another EU-style shakedown, where people take the existing situation at Facebook, Google, etc, and then pass laws against it, then immediately demand them "pay their fair share" for breaking these laws

Oh? I voted to leave the EU but even I don't recognise them as having done that.

Indeed, nothing Facebook or Google have been investigated and fined for in the EU has been due to a law brought in to target either of them. Most of the laws they break are older than they are.

It's the EU. Obey its laws or don't do business there. It's not a terribly difficult concept.

Re:Summary/Article disagreement

[cardpuncher]

Sorry to interrupt your little rant of hurt American exceptionalism, but Facebook were issued with the maximum fine for the laws pertaining at the time for something that was actually illegal at the time. GDPR rules would have allowed a much greater fine to be levied but it wasn't because "ex post facto" is simply a figment of your imagination and the offences were committed before those rules came into force.

Why do they need new laws? Because, despite assurances, Facebook is still pushing out swathes of overtly political advertising without effectively identifying the source and appears to be failing miserably to control seriously harmful content that is leading to the children harming and killing themselves. Also, it appears that Facebook seem to accept that they may have been breaking the law and haven't been that concerned about it: the law, if that be true, needs to be made more compelling.

Politics was very reluctant to take on tech - partly because they didn't understand it and partly because they didn't want to be seen to be stifling economic growth. However, they now do understand it - it's not about tech and it's not about beneficial economic growth, it's about an amoral group of rich people making themselves richer still. So they now feel rather more comfortable about legislating.

Yanno

[nehumanuscrede]

None of this bullshit will stop until the fines become painful enough to make them think twice about doing it.

Painful as in, the fine will damn near bankrupt your entire business. The mere thought of a fine will cause all of your investors to panic sell any stock they own in your company.

But, that will never happen because the Goverment(s) LOVE access to all that data. They just don't like to admit to it. ( publicly )

Re:Yanno

[NicknameUnavailable]

None of this bullshit will stop until the fines become painful enough to make them think twice about doing it.

When their entire business model is based in selling people's data they should just be banned.

Re:Yanno

[Tom]

If you actually wanted to, you could very well do something.

The international arrest warrent exists, and it would dramatically reduce Zuckerbergs mobility. It would hit him where it really hurts, because you can't be part of the international elite if you can't travel internationally anymore.

And you can block Facebook in the EU without any Internet filters. Did you forget what their business is? In Zuckerbergs own words: "Senator, we run ads". If they can't sell ads in Europe anymore, that's their business in Europe gone. It would also drop their stock price through the floor because investor will need about three seconds to understand that Facebook will either operate at a loss in Europe, or leave the market to competitors, and Europe is a larger market than the US, both by population and money.

If governments weren't at this point in time wholly owned and operated by corporations, they very well could show teeth. But the politicians of today desperately want to belong to that global elite themselves after their term. That's why they are fishing for those speaking and consulting contracts that pay obscene rates that are basically legal bribes, and they wouldn't want to upset their potential future employers.

Re:Yanno

[mjwx]

None of this bullshit will stop until the fines become painful enough to make them think twice about doing it.

Painful as in, the fine will damn near bankrupt your entire business. The mere thought of a fine will cause all of your investors to panic sell any stock they own in your company.

But, that will never happen because the Goverment(s) LOVE access to all that data. They just don't like to admit to it. ( publicly )

Fines?

Fines are ineffective at discouraging behaviour. This behaviour will continue until some C level execs end up in the slammer.

Ultimately, it wasn't fines that reduced DUI, it was the instant loss of license. People value their ability to drive for 12 months over £2500.

Re:Yanno

[AmiMoJo]

GDPR allows for 4% of global turnover. Not profit made in the EU, but 4% of every penny made by Facebook world wide before tax and before costs.

For many companies that's more than adequate because their profit margins are barely 4% overall. But for tech companies like Facebook... Well, it would be about 10% of their profits, painful but not crippling.

The limit should be raised at least to 4% of global turnover or 100% of global profit, which ever is higher.

Re:"Digital Gangster"

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

Facebook is not "an information medium", Facebook is an advertising company. Everything you read in your "feeds" or whatever there is advertising, or laboratory experiments to fine-tune the delivery of advertising. It has not been "misused" to deliver lies and disinformation, it has received (a lot of) money to spread lies and disinformation.

And yes, your second paragraph is spot on: Facebook should, indeed, "flip the switch" and do not operate in places, which laws it refuses to obey. Now, hold your righteous "free market" horse and consider this for a moment - Facebook doesn't do that. What does this simple observation tell you?

Yep, exactly, the Facebooks strongly prefer to be in those places and do not share your outrage. So, maybe you should calm down, too.

intention

[Tom]

Too few people understood already that all of this behaviour by the large corporations is fully intentional.

The law moves slowly, the markets move fast. That is why breaking the law is short-term profitable, and short-term profits are all that matters if you are measured by quarterly results. Your chances of either working somewhere else already or having made it so big that you basically don't care by the time the punishment rolls around are pretty good.

The whole system is rigged to make law-breaking profitable. And there's no easy fix.

Re:"Digital Gangster"

[Mr. Dollar Ton]

Well, if you ask me if they are the Stazi with an advertising arm or a "Pravda"-like propaganda powerhouse with a side business in state security, I'll probably answer that I'm on the fence about it :)