Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 221 posts

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#201

Post by 3xblah »

thesausageking wrote: post #164

The head of the FTC voted against it and gave his reasoning here: https://twitter.com/chopraftc/status/1154010756079390720 One that stood out for me is complete immunity for for the execs for "known" and "unknown" violations: "Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, and other executives get blanket immunity for their role in the violations. This is wrong and sets a terrible precedent. The law doesn’t give them a special ex…

"Facebook knows, but the public is kept in the dark."

What stood out for me were the two dissenting statements by Commissioners Chopra and Slaughter.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements...

Chopra disagreed with the decision not to charge the `bergs and noted that in the Cambridge Analytica case the former CEO was charged.

Slaughter believes that there was sufficient evidence to name Zuckerberg in a lawsuit.

It is possible that Facebook fears Mark Zuckerberg being subjected to court-ordered discovery and put under oath. He came very close in a shareholder lawsuit some years ago and Facebook settled on the day before he was to testify.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#202

Post by FireBeyond »

almost_usual wrote: post #158
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #86

Someone I work with found this: The interesting part is in the write up from The Verge ( https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/24/20707013/ftc-facebook-set... ): > "The settlement’s $5 billion penalty makes for a good headline," FTC commissioner Rohit Chopra wrote in his dissent. "But the terms and conditions, including blanket immunity for Facebook executives and no real restraints on Facebook’s business model, do not fix…

Did you read the entire FTC write up? Facebook essentially doesn't have control over how they handle privacy data anymore. I'd argue the fine is the least damaging aspect. "As part of Facebook’s order-mandated privacy program, which covers WhatsApp and Instagram, Facebook must conduct a privacy review of every new or modified product, service, or practice before it is implemented, and document its decisions about use…

Reports. Not approval.

Facebook has to _document_ what they're doing in the privacy world. They have to prepare a report of what they did, and be willing to share it, and accept the consequences (which they already effectively do, just more opaquely).

At no point does the compliance officer have to _approve_ "how they handle privacy data any more", nor the independent assessor, nor the FTC.

They still have complete control over how they choose to behave and steer. They just have to report on it.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#203

Post by FireBeyond »

vineyardmike wrote: post #92
linuxdude314 wrote: post #2

If there isn't escalation in price for violations past this in the future, this may just be the new price to play ball.

Don't forget that future violations hold Zuck et al. personally liable for violations. Potentially criminally liable. > Any false certification will subject them to individual civil and criminal penalties.

Oooh, not quite. IANAL, but I've worked with enough to know exactly what this means.

Facebook is required to _report_ how they handle privacy data. They can choose what that handling looks like. They just have to accurately describe that. The false certification is related to materially false statements in the _reporting_. How they handle privacy data is still up to them (albeit potentially subject to future sanction if problematic), but this definitely does _not_ state that Zuck will be subject to criminal liability for future privacy problems.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#204

Post by FireBeyond »

b_tterc_p wrote: post #14

I get that fines don’t always offset the benefit gained from shady practice, but frankly I don’t think Facebook got $5B from this. That’s ~25% of last year’s net income. That’s a punch in the jaw.

> That’s ~25% of last year’s net income

net profit.

And accounted for over the last few quarters already.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#205

Post by godelski »

leapis wrote: post #66
pavel_lishin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who did worse, the friend sharing the data I gave to them, or the stranger who got it without permission? I honestly don't know which answer here is supposed to be the obviously correct one.

I think the idea is supposed to be that you have some agency when you share your data with a friend. You can choose whether you want to entrust your data to this friend or not, and the onus is on you to properly vet them for transparency and trustworthiness. Conversely, if a stranger leaks your data, that isn't on you at all (beyond you allowing the stranger access to your data, but that's stretching the metaphor a b…

There's a real question about consent here. I know a lot of techies that don't understand ML that well (not even better than the general public). I saw a comment in another form "ML is like QM, if you think you understand it you don't.", And I think that's fairly accurate and Feynman would have loved it. So

1) how can you give proper consent if it takes a great deal of expertise to understand what you're getting yourself into (never mind that complexity doesn't come across, but that's a good question too. About conveying complexity).

2) can consent even be given if we can't be fully informed? Or rather how informed do you need to be to give consent?

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#206

Post by b_tterc_p »

FireBeyond wrote: post #204
b_tterc_p wrote: post #14

I get that fines don’t always offset the benefit gained from shady practice, but frankly I don’t think Facebook got $5B from this. That’s ~25% of last year’s net income. That’s a punch in the jaw.

> That’s ~25% of last year’s net income net profit. And accounted for over the last few quarters already.

Net Income == Net Profit

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#207

Post by FireBeyond »

b_tterc_p wrote: post #206
FireBeyond wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s ~25% of last year’s net income net profit. And accounted for over the last few quarters already.

Net Income == Net Profit

I stand corrected... I was thinking of revenue.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#208

Post by _8j50 »

jawns wrote: post #8

A lot of the terms of the settlement deal with organizational changes, but when you look at the very specific privacy restrictions that Facebook agreed to, it's really, really problematic stuff: * Facebook is prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising; * Facebook must provide clear and conspicuous notice of its use of facial recognit…

I agree it's not enough but it is something. They can still be fined again for less egregious things,the potential risk of an even bigger penalty still looms.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#209

Post by wutbrodo »

indiandragon wrote: post #64
jawns wrote: post #8

A lot of the terms of the settlement deal with organizational changes, but when you look at the very specific privacy restrictions that Facebook agreed to, it's really, really problematic stuff: * Facebook is prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising; * Facebook must provide clear and conspicuous notice of its use of facial recognit…

> prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising Facebook is not alone in misuse or wrongful use of phone number given for 2FA. LinkedIn explicitly requires phone number to be added on the profile to enable 2FA and makes the phone number visible by default to all the contacts, if you don't want your phone number visible; you'll have to l…

I'm not surprised to hear this at all. LinkedIn is probably the scummiest tech company of reasonable size, and always have been. Facebook only gets more attention because they're much bigger and more powerful, so people notice their constant toeing of the boundaries while ignoring LinkedIn blithely leaping across them.

Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook

#210

Post by wutbrodo »

djsumdog wrote: post #72
jawns wrote: post #8

A lot of the terms of the settlement deal with organizational changes, but when you look at the very specific privacy restrictions that Facebook agreed to, it's really, really problematic stuff: * Facebook is prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising; * Facebook must provide clear and conspicuous notice of its use of facial recognit…

> So from Facebook's perspective, this is probably a big win. $5 billion is a lot, but Facebook is huge. Even considering, it's probably not pocket change for them, but they are getting a benefit from it for sure. They are buying public opinion. "Look at us..we took a big fine and agreed to respect your privacy .. you can trust us now." It's essentially a very expensive ad, used to rebuild trust with their cattle; I…

"Fined $5B by regulators" doesn't usually have the PR effect of making a company seem trustworthy. It gives the company the reputation, validated by regulators in the eyes of the public, that they were caught doing something egregious and will likely do it again if they think they can get away with it.

I've never heard someone express the point you're making: can you think of any example where the PR impact turned out that way?

Post reply on HN