at market cap close to 600B this is less than 1% of its "wealth"
FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook
91–100 of 221 posts
Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook
#92If 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.
Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook
#93Does it bother anyone else that Facebook is being fined $5 billion while Equifax, a company with a history of anti-consumer activity and privacy violations going back decades, the company that congress was forced to enact the Fair Credit Reporting Act to contain, and who gave away all the personal information for over a hundred million people through its own negligence, was fined a mere $650 million? Do you get the i…
It bother's me there are worse enemies. I'm still happy to see our lesser enemies be curtailed. Just as it bother's me that there are kids starving in africa... but I still donate to my local food bank. A worse evil doesn't mean we can't improve on other evils.
Sure but it does indicate an imbalance in the justice system.
Remember when a gram of crack got you the same prison time as 100g of cocaine?
Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook
#94Does it bother anyone else that Facebook is being fined $5 billion while Equifax, a company with a history of anti-consumer activity and privacy violations going back decades, the company that congress was forced to enact the Fair Credit Reporting Act to contain, and who gave away all the personal information for over a hundred million people through its own negligence, was fined a mere $650 million? Do you get the i…
Nope. Because fines are also based on companies' capacity to pay unless idea is to shutdown company and have majority or all employees jobless on street. So fines should be big enough to cause pain but not to cripple the company from operating.
Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook
#95Does it bother anyone else that Facebook is being fined $5 billion while Equifax, a company with a history of anti-consumer activity and privacy violations going back decades, the company that congress was forced to enact the Fair Credit Reporting Act to contain, and who gave away all the personal information for over a hundred million people through its own negligence, was fined a mere $650 million? Do you get the i…
What is the proportional hit though? You need to compare the percentage/ratio of the fine to the companies net worth and also to their annual revenue and profit margins.
Just because company is smaller, punishment should be lower? Impact of both leaks on average joe is much different, and size of penalties have it reversed
Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook
#96I still find Facebook has one of the most toxic cultures of any company out there. All they've ever done during their history is betray user trust, but it's ok as long as they keep 'apologizing' and then doing nothing to fix it
Did you work there? I worked there for 2 years (it was a mistake), and found that the culture wasn't toxic, just obtuse. They never questioned what they did, or thought about the implications. They focused on "move fast," without really thinking through implications of things.
> the culture wasn't toxic, just obtuse. They never questioned what they did, or thought about the implications
I question your distinction. Toxic behavior is largely caused by people not caring about harm caused to others.
Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook
#97Someone 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…
If they really "fixed" the core problems at Facebook, Facebook would have to cease to exist. Their business model from the very beginning has been based on collecting highly intimate personal information from everyone and using it for Zuck's gain.
Facebook ceasing to exist is probably not a bad idea, but it's rather unrealistic.
Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook
#98A 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…
It seems like a pretty big repeat of the 2011 settlement. That's also when big statements such as "Facebook's privacy practices will be monitored for the next 20 years by the FTC" proved to be absolutely meaningless . Whatever privacy review Facebook was undergoing like once a year was done by a private firm that Facebook could pick and then have to pay. So is it any wonder that those so-called privacy auditors have…
There is a lot of misunderstanding about how the FTC regulatory process works in cases like this, outside of securities and other financial instruments, the FTC has very little power to force legally binding fines upon companies.
What they do is issue settlements, Facebook agreed to this fine, and to the conditions surrounding it, because if they didn't they might face hard, law based regulation from Congress.
The issue here is, the FTC process relies on good faith from the companies it settles with, and Facebook has repeatedly shown to be a bad faith actor in this regard (which is why its a 5 billion dollar fine to begin with)
The only way this is going to end is with very onerous regulation from Congress.
Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook
#99>Facebook must exercise greater oversight over third-party apps, including by terminating app developers that fail to certify that they are in compliance with Facebook’s platform policies or fail to justify their need for specific user data; >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 con…
>Facebook must encrypt user passwords and regularly scan to detect whether any passwords are stored in plaintext; and Why are they storing passwords at all? It's not necessary for authentication. They should only be storing a hash, or better yet a public key derived from the password on the client.
It came to light that they were storing passwords in plaintext in an application log. In theory they only store hashes in places where they actually intend to store passwords.
Re: FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook
#100A 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…
Omg this is gross. I definitely do not want random recruiters having my phone number...