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

181–190 of 202 posts

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#181

Post by ethbr1 »

immibis wrote: post #170
nox101 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU didn't get this right - or else they aren't enforcing it. I'm in the EU right now and the crap I see is a popup "We respect your privacy. Us and 352 (not an exaggeration!) of our partners are collecting data on you. Approve or Details?" Pick details and you can spend your time going through the partners https://pasteboard.co/rrL2bpmiE6Zq.png And most you can't reject Even more hilarious. pageboard itself said…

This is mostly unenforced, as it WAS ruled that it must be as easy to reject as to accept. However, they're going after "consent to ads or buy a subscription" which I thought was a pretty fair compromise business model.

Imho, the problem with "consent to ads or buy a subscription" is that it becomes the new CableCARD [0].

I.e. all companies really want to be in the business of tracking customers, because they can repackage derivative products and increase their revenue.

So the "subscription" option ends up experiencing a lack of support, mysterious technical issues, underinvestment, etc.

End result, customers don't choose it, which businesses use to lobby for further eroding mandates.

You can't force a company to provide and support a product they don't want to. You can force them to turn one off.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#182

Post by ethbr1 »

NickC25 wrote: post #103
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.

Shareholders also don't care if the behavior continues so long as the profits from the behavior continue to vastly outweigh the cost of the activity in question. If the fine is $ABC, and that fine never changes, but profits grow from $ABC x3 to $ABC x10, shareholders will actually get mad that the corporation doesn't continue the activity in question because there's net profit growth. Sadly, sometimes the cost of que…

The business community seems pretty upset by the penalties the SEC has been levying lately...

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/the-supreme-court-...

(The Supreme Court declined to hear the case)

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#183

Post by xnyan »

chatmasta wrote: post #167
xnyan wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to AT&T, yes they can get your GPS location. In this article they claim they only do so when the user is making a 911 call, to which I say “yeah right”. https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/10/23065777/att-route-911-ca...

How does this work? I assumed it was tower triangulation, but the article makes it sound like it really is using GPS location. Does the SIM card have a program that somehow can access the GPS sensor via the baseband processor?

Not a clue, but according to AT&T in the article below "It is already present in all Apple and Android smartphones. An AT&T spokesperson told Fierce via email, "There is no need to deploy anything new for smartphones." I'd be interested if anyone knew how they're doing it.

https://www.fierce-network.com/wireless/att-rolls-out-gps-ba...

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#184

Post by throw10920 »

gruez wrote: post #92
tithe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sprint - 0.0003 of revenue T-Mobile - 0.0009 of revenue AT&T - 0.0004 of revenue Verizon - 0.0003 of revenue

Seems like a weird comparison to make considering the money they made selling the data is only a small fraction of their overall revenue.

It is a weird comparison, because it's intentionally deceptive.

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#185

Post by throw10920 »

jmward01 wrote: post #12

The core issue is transparency. I don't want to see a 'privacy policy', I want to see who a company has sold/given my information to and what limitations that sale has. The concept is simple. If you collect anything about me and allow some other entity access, you tell me about it/make it easy for me to see -and- block. Most of this abuse of personal data would go away if people knew it was going on.

> I want to see who a company has sold/given my information to and what limitations that sale has

To expand on this more - I feel like laws requiring companies to keep a "custody chain" of personal data at every transfer step would be relatively un-controversial. Sure, I'd rather do away with personal data being able to be bought and sold entirely, but an easy first step is "massive fines for any company that doesn't carefully track exactly which entity touched the user's data".

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#186

Post by throw10920 »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #135
abujazar wrote: post #114

Those fines are pocket money for the offenders. Why are there no real consequences?

Regulators have largely been defanged in the US for decades now. Just read the article and note that this was discovered in 2018, the FCC decided to do something in 2020, and from then until now it's been gridlocked by Republican party obstruction on the panel. And this isn't nearly the end of it. It'll go to court under appeal, for more years, and who knows how that falls. The result is regulators like the FCC and S…

> Maybe we should rethink that rhetoric just a bit?

Blatant emotional manipulation is not suitable for HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#187

Post by cameldrv »

jmward01 wrote: post #12

The core issue is transparency. I don't want to see a 'privacy policy', I want to see who a company has sold/given my information to and what limitations that sale has. The concept is simple. If you collect anything about me and allow some other entity access, you tell me about it/make it easy for me to see -and- block. Most of this abuse of personal data would go away if people knew it was going on.

I just don't want 'em to do it. I expect companies I have a paying business relationship with to not report on my private comings and goings, especially not to bounty hunters and other shady characters. Back in the day if you did something like this, you would be run out of town on a rail, but unfortunately we've allowed mobile phone companies and a lot of others to get such a large national market share that there is no recourse.

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#188

Post by mulmen »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #75
mulmen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that have to do with selling data?

the point is they fine spammers supposedly and nothing changes; i wasn't clear.

Ok? Your question betrays a complete misunderstanding of how our system of government and law enforcement works. This is not a system of vengeful retribution. It’s based on measured checks and balances. Your feelings are irrelevant.

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#189

Post by dchftcs »

ethbr1 wrote: post #182
NickC25 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shareholders also don't care if the behavior continues so long as the profits from the behavior continue to vastly outweigh the cost of the activity in question. If the fine is $ABC, and that fine never changes, but profits grow from $ABC x3 to $ABC x10, shareholders will actually get mad that the corporation doesn't continue the activity in question because there's net profit growth. Sadly, sometimes the cost of que…

The business community seems pretty upset by the penalties the SEC has been levying lately... https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/the-supreme-court-... (The Supreme Court declined to hear the case)

To be fair, they are not mutually exclusive. Businesses are incentivized to fight penalties as long as they think the legal costs are small enough compared to the fines themselves, regardless whether the activity their fine on was still profitable after the fine.

Re: FCC fines largest wireless carriers for sharing location data

#190

Post by sumtechguy »

dotnet00 wrote: post #48
sumtechguy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

perhaps. but guess who gets to pay that fine? it sure will not be phone companies. it will be in your next bill.

That excuse can be used for all violations of regulations, and thus quickly becomes somewhat unreasonable. Particularly since the question being asked is the theoretical of if the prices would not increase by the same percent if the fine was not levied (eg "due to inflation").

I get that you do not like that they will do it but do it they will. All costs are born by the customer. To do otherwise is a one way ticket to lower stock prices and less C-suite compensation. If they are not then your business will eventually go out of business.

Here is how they will do it too. Them: 'have you seen our NEW plan? It is amazing. It is only 5 dollars, the cost of a cup of coffee, more a month and all the amazing new things you get access to.' Me: looks at their plan. Me: 'Seems about the same as my previous one.' Them: 'But this NEW one is amazing. Our glossy advert campaign says so.'

They will not say they are raising prices because of it. They will sell you on how their new plan is 'better' and make your bear the cost (plus a little more for them).

I sat in a meeting where one company was selling unlimited plans. The company I was working for were still selling 1MB per month at 40 bucks a megabyte. They said their customers would pay it and more because of who they were. They are tone deaf and blind to it. The second the advert campaigns changed the tone of the meetings changed. In that case they had to change their pricing because of external pressures. However in this case all the carriers are being zinged. They will all raise prices. Because for sure they are not going to cover it.

You know it to be true. But do not like it which is fair. I do not like it much either.

Post reply on HN