71–80 of 249 posts
The sooner companies start to realize that personal data is a liability rather than an asset the better. Happy to see this fine, but as far as I'm concerned given the kind of data we're talking about here it should have been higher.
100x this fine would have been appropriate. Anything less just encourages other companies to treat privacy and data security as a joke.
The thing that always bothered me most about Grindr is the fact they do not allow any connectivity from VPNs, even if you have an upgraded account. This doesn't seem to jive well with the need for privacy or anonymity in places where it's dangerous to be gay.
In particular, the revenue limit seems problematic. For a "normal" company whose profit margin is a relatively small fraction of revenue, 4% of revenue is huge. But for highly profitable large tech companies that make money primarily from ads, it may not be possible to issue a dissuasive fine if it is capped to 4% of revenue. Maybe "4% of revenue, or 200% of profit, whichever is higher" would be a better limit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember someone here putting it this way: treat user data like uranium, not oil. Both are valuable, but you don’t want to just collect and store an unlimited amount of uranium. Collect the bare minimum user data you need to operate your business and then dispose of it when it’s no longer needed.
But, to use your analogy, why would companies treat user data like uranium when risk/reward is like that of oil? Grinder surely made much more from data sales than the 6.something million Erous it was find. The paltry fines under GDPR do nothing to dissuade this behavio. That's been a recurring theme in previous HN discussions on this topic. Right now, I would posit that these low penalties are for show. Governments…
...sure, but they also had business expenses. Fining them for all the revenue would more or less instantly kill the company, which is hardly the goal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What aspect of GDPR is troublesome to you? Because 'dont abuse your ownership of personal data' is pretty much what it boils down to.
>What aspect of GDPR is troublesome to you? It tries to restrict data. Information wants to be free. It has no owner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
neat, this analogy travels pretty far - user data is radioactive. theres a background amount of radiation. its everywhere, even in higher amounts than youd expect like bananas and airplanes. no amount is safe, but the risks are neglibly small when exposure is minimized. concentrated amounts can be safe when exposure is controlled and managed with oversight programs in place. disasters can be managed with disaster pro…
Ah, the linear no threshold theory of radiation. If background radiation is everywhere , how can there be no safe dose . It’s a fun analogy, but reinforces an incorrect assumption.
The higher the level, the more full chambers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fine of this size indicates to me they should harvest and sell more data to increase profits. Tens of millions would still probably be worth it to Grindr. Imagine your a government who doesn’t like homosexuals. Pay a fee - $5-$10m and you’ll get a list of users globally. Probably with travel patterns. Next time they enter the country, arrest or block visas before they enter. Nah, this fine (which I don’t even know…
Wait a second, it's not Grindr gathering and selling a list of homosexuals interested into sex. It's the users themselves who actively register on Grindr to announce their services and picture on the platform. If this activity is illegal in the country of the user, the best Grindr can do, is to prevent users from these countries from registering on the platform based on their national ID, but that's basically it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you keep it around to sell then you are likely violating the 'legal basis for processing' part of the GDPR. Data can only be used for the purpose for which it was originally collected, selling the data to others to use without that exact same goal can not be such a purpose, and even then you will have to be quite careful that you maintain control. Various EU data brokers (Schober, for instance) have found ways to…
GDPR only requires informed consent to allow selling of data as far as I know. Am I wrong about that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A fine of this size indicates to me they should harvest and sell more data to increase profits. Tens of millions would still probably be worth it to Grindr. Imagine your a government who doesn’t like homosexuals. Pay a fee - $5-$10m and you’ll get a list of users globally. Probably with travel patterns. Next time they enter the country, arrest or block visas before they enter. Nah, this fine (which I don’t even know…
Wait a second, it's not Grindr gathering and selling a list of homosexuals interested into sex. It's the users themselves who actively register on Grindr to announce their services and picture on the platform. If this activity is illegal in the country of the user, the best Grindr can do, is to prevent users from these countries from registering on the platform based on their national ID, but that's basically it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What aspect of GDPR is troublesome to you? Because 'dont abuse your ownership of personal data' is pretty much what it boils down to.
>What aspect of GDPR is troublesome to you? It tries to restrict data. Information wants to be free. It has no owner.