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

FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

docs.fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 202 posts

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#151

Post by jddj »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #144
jddj wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I did check it all before I commented, quietly preparing to come out with something a little more scathing. It's nearly there though so it's genuinely an improvement on how they used to behave. Leaving aside the general ridiculousness, that is, and without checking their actual daily revenue which I'm fairly confident is more likely to be wrong than the arithmetic.

> It's nearly there though so it's genuinely an improvement on how they used to behave. It's writing the conclusion at the beginning, so none of that convincing-looking mathematical reasoning had any bearing on the provided answer. The sum in the fourth paragraph could have been implemented using a plugin: we have no reason to believe the actual language model is doing it (and lots of precedent to suggest it probably…

You're probably right, and I did wonder if it was just delegating the math. I remember they tried to get chatgpt to delegate to python for that sort of thing.

What interested me was that even though it got it backwards 520.4 / 196 isn't quite 2.67, without allowing for some weird floating point behaviour (it's 2.655)

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#152

Post by gameman144 »

amalcon wrote: post #146
nickff wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What constitutional right to privacy from private parties? There’s no explicit constitutional right to privacy, and the constitution only binds the government.

Possibly the first amendment, "petition the government for redress of grievances". Privacy violation is not an explicitly enumerated grievance, but neither are most causes for civil litigation. Also possibly not; it depends on the particulars and the judge.

You definitely have the right to petition the government for redress of this grievance: you can ask your representatives to pass laws banning it.

The first amendment would have nothing to do with that actual law though (since if it were, literally anything could be considered a grievance)

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#153

Post by killjoywashere »

Like probably everyone, probably up to and including Sundar Pichai (I suspect), I have a love hate relationship with Google. In this case, I thought it would be interesting to ask the question, does Google Fi sell user real-time location data? I will let the Leviathan speak for itself:

https://www.google.com/search?q=does+google+fi+sell+users%27...

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#155

Post by throwaway48476 »

killjoywashere wrote: post #153

Like probably everyone, probably up to and including Sundar Pichai (I suspect), I have a love hate relationship with Google. In this case, I thought it would be interesting to ask the question, does Google Fi sell user real-time location data? I will let the Leviathan speak for itself: https://www.google.com/search?q=does+google+fi+sell+users%27...

Google Fi is an MVNO. They use the big 3 for coverage and they are definitely selling your location data.

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#156

Post by jddj »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #142
10000truths wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you use revenue and not net profit for this calculation?

What would be the justification for using profit rather than revenue? For years Amazon was one of the biggest companies in the world while never making a profit. If it engaged in wrongdoing should they have been given a fine of 0$ (or negative I guess) since they weren't profitable?

I don't think the parent is suggesting that they be fined based on their profit.

They're saying it's unusual to use revenue to talk about how easily a company could pay a fine, given that (cashflow cleverness aside) your revenue doesn't determine your ability to pay for arbitary extras.

In reality neither does net profit, as nonessentials and comp tend to consume just enough to leave a profitability which keeps shareholders happy.

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#157

Post by killjoywashere »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #155
killjoywashere wrote: post #153

Like probably everyone, probably up to and including Sundar Pichai (I suspect), I have a love hate relationship with Google. In this case, I thought it would be interesting to ask the question, does Google Fi sell user real-time location data? I will let the Leviathan speak for itself: https://www.google.com/search?q=does+google+fi+sell+users%27...

Google Fi is an MVNO. They use the big 3 for coverage and they are definitely selling your location data.

Actually, seems like the opposite is true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18885149

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#158

Post by [deleted] »

teh_infallible wrote: post #102
ethbr1 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount is not the point. It's the fact that they were fined. Shareholders tend to be unhappy with "We were fined for doing this, and so we kept doing it and now owe another fine." Also, exec bodies/courts/juries tend to be more skeptical of an ignorance defense if a company was literally fined for doing that exact thing previously.

This is a bribe masquerading as a fine.

[deleted]

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#159

Post by amalcon »

acchow wrote: post #148
amalcon wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly the first amendment, "petition the government for redress of grievances". Privacy violation is not an explicitly enumerated grievance, but neither are most causes for civil litigation. Also possibly not; it depends on the particulars and the judge.

That’s about grievances against the government itself, not private parties.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. That clause is treated as the source of the right to access the civil litigation system; this is what "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" means. The right to sue the government itself doesn't meaningfully exist except as the government permits (sovereign immunity), and it was much later that this clause was read (IMO correctly but I'm just some dude) to cover non-litigation activities.
Post reply on HN