4 ms·

I'm sick and tired of hearing about fines for clearly criminal activity. This is most likely a felony issue at hand, here. The executives who green-lighted th

I'm sick and tired of hearing about fines for clearly criminal activity. This is most likely a felony issue at hand, here. The executives who green-lighted this activity should be held accountable and charged accordingly. That's the only thing people understand. That, or ruinous fines. Not a paltry $2.2M for a company with revenues of $3.1B - that's less than 0.1%!!! That's a rounding error to them. $10,000 per occurrence for the company would be much better, and jail for the executive(s) who are responsible, and then this crap might actually stop.

forgetsusername 10y ago
Only in America is locking people up the solution to all life's problems.
- turc1656 10y ago
  No, but it is definitely a solid solution to criminal problems, which is exactly what this is. These are most certainly criminal acts. Why should I not expect criminal activity to be charged as such? Most criminal activity is done for profit, and that's certainly the case here. For-profit crimes have two solutions. You either make them unprofitable by fining the offender(s) more than they are making from the illegal activity or you give them a free, extended stay at the Gray Bar Motel, courtesy of the US taxpayer. I am more than happy to help foot that bill if necessary.
  - throwaway160303 10y ago
    I'm unclear on something - you've said that these are "clearly" criminal acts. What would the charge be?
    - 0xCMP 10y ago
      How about fraud? Why is tricking someone to give you a password and using it enough to go to jail, but recording everything someone watches without their permission and selling to 3rd parties not?
    - turc1656 10y ago
      There are a number of laws relating to "unauthorized access" of private, digital information. This would seem to fall squarely inside of those, at least in my opinion. Those seem like the low-hanging fruit. Going out a bit further, you could make a case for fraud or even hacking. Fraud because they are clearly misrepresenting the product and what it does. Hacking because they slipped in an OS update for older TV's that allowed them to have this feature on models that they never intended to have it on. Also, they admitted to selling this information to advertisers. That's redistributing information they were not legally allowed to have. There are laws regarding profiting from crimes. But even if you leave those out, there is the issue of them selling information they didn't legally own. That could also come with a copyright violation if a lawyer for a class action suit was able to successfully argue that the owners of the televisions owned that information that they stole without permission. That seems like a tough win, though. So I think unauthorized access, fraud, and the sale of illegally obtained information would be fair charges to apply.
    - turc1656 10y ago
      Some additional information, direct from the FTC: "The complaint alleges that Vizio engaged in unfair trade practices that violated the FTC Act and were unconscionable under New Jersey law." https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/02/what-vizio-was-doing-behind-tv-screen https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/02/... The FTC act is long-standing federal law and NJ apparently has its own strong laws for this kind of activity. The FTC itself states that there are clear violations of at least these laws, at bare minimum.
- r00fus 10y ago
  Ah, but Corporate officers are immune to prosecution, and simply pay a (small) fine (consider it an indulgence). The Corporate veil uber-alles!
TeMPOraL 10y ago
With that in mind, I like what the EU seems to be doing with GDPR[0]. For failing to properly manage user data, you can end up with fines like: - a fine up to 10,000,000 EUR or up to 2% of the annual worldwide turnover of the preceding financial year in case of an enterprise, whichever is greater - a fine up to 20,000,000 EUR or up to 4% of the annual worldwide turnover of the preceding financial year in case of an enterprise, whichever is greater ...which, considering the stuff companies have been pulling off rencently, seems quite OK. A 10M EUR minimum might, hopefully, at least scare off some of the small "innovators" in the area of surveillance economy. As for big corporations, I doubt anything but jail time for executives will work though. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...
- turc1656 10y ago
  I like this law. Now the real question - is it actually enforced? Because it's meaningless otherwise. In most cases we don't need new laws, we just need the existing ones to be enforced. Like all these "bullying" laws. I never understood why we needed them when we already have plenty of harassment laws on the books. Enforce those and problem solved.
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    > I like this law. Now the real question - is it actually enforced? Because it's meaningless otherwise. Right, yeah, see regulators don't want a court challenge. They could find their whole charter declared unconstitutional. Not as punishment, but simply because nobody ever challenged it. They try to strike a balance between going to court and enforcing the will of the people/legislators/regulations. If it seems akin to a traffic ticket, well thats because traffic cops are doing the same thing
    - flipbrad 10y ago
      Regulators and civil society groups have taken the GDPR's predecessor (the Data Protection Directive) to court plenty of times, usually very successfully. The most famous regulator-brought court case is probably the Google Spain/Costeja "right to be forgotten" ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). 59 more CJEU Data Protection Directive cases here: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&nat=or&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=L%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C1995%252C46%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&td=%3BALL&pcs=Oor&avg=&page=1&mat=or&jge=&for=&cid=219082 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&nat=or&oqp=&date...
vm 10y ago
I hear you on that point and broadly agree that the penalties can be too trivial to cause deterrence (though VW's steep fines and criminal charges signal change). However in this case, who doesn't assume that everything we do is tracked for optimization? Every recommended product, story, TV show, news feed article, whatever comes from boatloads of testing. And it doesn't seem like people care. Although some bemoan Facebook and Google data tracking, almost everyone still uses the products.
- xanderstrike 10y ago
  > who doesn't assume that everything we do is tracked for optimization This kind of acquiescence is dangerous. What you're essentially saying is "why bother enforcing the laws, nobody follows them" which is a terrible moral position if the laws are just.
- eugeniub 10y ago
  People still use them because there are often significant consequences to not using them. Not using Facebook can often mean some level of social ostracism, missing out on important moments from family and friends. Not using Google means not being able to collaborate with people using Docs, not watching videos your friends send you, and so on. They're almost like public utilities, and saying "you use Facebook so you must not actually care about privacy" is like saying "you rely on the police, so you most not actually care about cases of police brutality."
  - morganvachon 10y ago
    > They're almost like public utilities, and saying "you use Facebook so you must not actually care about privacy" is like saying "you rely on the police, so you most not actually care about cases of police brutality." While I agree that they are like public utilities in many ways, I think your analogy is grossly flawed. For Facebook and Google to do what we want them to, they have no choice but to constantly invade our privacy. The very features we desire most from them are directly related to and tied to our personal information. By contrast, a police department absolutely does not require a single officer to commit violent crimes in order for them to keep the peace, arrest criminals, and protect the public.

forgetsusername 10y ago

Only in America is locking people up the solution to all life's problems.

turc1656 10y ago
No, but it is definitely a solid solution to criminal problems, which is exactly what this is. These are most certainly criminal acts. Why should I not expect criminal activity to be charged as such? Most criminal activity is done for profit, and that's certainly the case here. For-profit crimes have two solutions. You either make them unprofitable by fining the offender(s) more than they are making from the illegal activity or you give them a free, extended stay at the Gray Bar Motel, courtesy of the US taxpayer. I am more than happy to help foot that bill if necessary.
- throwaway160303 10y ago
  I'm unclear on something - you've said that these are "clearly" criminal acts. What would the charge be?
  - 0xCMP 10y ago
    How about fraud? Why is tricking someone to give you a password and using it enough to go to jail, but recording everything someone watches without their permission and selling to 3rd parties not?
  - turc1656 10y ago
    There are a number of laws relating to "unauthorized access" of private, digital information. This would seem to fall squarely inside of those, at least in my opinion. Those seem like the low-hanging fruit. Going out a bit further, you could make a case for fraud or even hacking. Fraud because they are clearly misrepresenting the product and what it does. Hacking because they slipped in an OS update for older TV's that allowed them to have this feature on models that they never intended to have it on. Also, they admitted to selling this information to advertisers. That's redistributing information they were not legally allowed to have. There are laws regarding profiting from crimes. But even if you leave those out, there is the issue of them selling information they didn't legally own. That could also come with a copyright violation if a lawyer for a class action suit was able to successfully argue that the owners of the televisions owned that information that they stole without permission. That seems like a tough win, though. So I think unauthorized access, fraud, and the sale of illegally obtained information would be fair charges to apply.
  - turc1656 10y ago
    Some additional information, direct from the FTC: "The complaint alleges that Vizio engaged in unfair trade practices that violated the FTC Act and were unconscionable under New Jersey law." https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/02/what-vizio-was-doing-behind-tv-screen https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2017/02/... The FTC act is long-standing federal law and NJ apparently has its own strong laws for this kind of activity. The FTC itself states that there are clear violations of at least these laws, at bare minimum.
r00fus 10y ago
Ah, but Corporate officers are immune to prosecution, and simply pay a (small) fine (consider it an indulgence). The Corporate veil uber-alles!

TeMPOraL 10y ago

With that in mind, I like what the EU seems to be doing with GDPR[0]. For failing to properly manage user data, you can end up with fines like: - a fine up to 10,000,000 EUR or up to 2% of the annual worldwide turnover of the preceding financial year in case of an enterprise, whichever is greater - a fine up to 20,000,000 EUR or up to 4% of the annual worldwide turnover of the preceding financial year in case of an enterprise, whichever is greater ...which, considering the stuff companies have been pulling off rencently, seems quite OK. A 10M EUR minimum might, hopefully, at least scare off some of the small "innovators" in the area of surveillance economy. As for big corporations, I doubt anything but jail time for executives will work though. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...

turc1656 10y ago
I like this law. Now the real question - is it actually enforced? Because it's meaningless otherwise. In most cases we don't need new laws, we just need the existing ones to be enforced. Like all these "bullying" laws. I never understood why we needed them when we already have plenty of harassment laws on the books. Enforce those and problem solved.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  > I like this law. Now the real question - is it actually enforced? Because it's meaningless otherwise. Right, yeah, see regulators don't want a court challenge. They could find their whole charter declared unconstitutional. Not as punishment, but simply because nobody ever challenged it. They try to strike a balance between going to court and enforcing the will of the people/legislators/regulations. If it seems akin to a traffic ticket, well thats because traffic cops are doing the same thing
  - flipbrad 10y ago
    Regulators and civil society groups have taken the GDPR's predecessor (the Data Protection Directive) to court plenty of times, usually very successfully. The most famous regulator-brought court case is probably the Google Spain/Costeja "right to be forgotten" ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). 59 more CJEU Data Protection Directive cases here: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&nat=or&oqp=&dates=&lg=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=L%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C1995%252C46%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&td=%3BALL&pcs=Oor&avg=&page=1&mat=or&jge=&for=&cid=219082 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?pro=&nat=or&oqp=&date...

vm 10y ago

I hear you on that point and broadly agree that the penalties can be too trivial to cause deterrence (though VW's steep fines and criminal charges signal change). However in this case, who doesn't assume that everything we do is tracked for optimization? Every recommended product, story, TV show, news feed article, whatever comes from boatloads of testing. And it doesn't seem like people care. Although some bemoan Facebook and Google data tracking, almost everyone still uses the products.

xanderstrike 10y ago
> who doesn't assume that everything we do is tracked for optimization This kind of acquiescence is dangerous. What you're essentially saying is "why bother enforcing the laws, nobody follows them" which is a terrible moral position if the laws are just.
eugeniub 10y ago
People still use them because there are often significant consequences to not using them. Not using Facebook can often mean some level of social ostracism, missing out on important moments from family and friends. Not using Google means not being able to collaborate with people using Docs, not watching videos your friends send you, and so on. They're almost like public utilities, and saying "you use Facebook so you must not actually care about privacy" is like saying "you rely on the police, so you most not actually care about cases of police brutality."
- morganvachon 10y ago
  > They're almost like public utilities, and saying "you use Facebook so you must not actually care about privacy" is like saying "you rely on the police, so you most not actually care about cases of police brutality." While I agree that they are like public utilities in many ways, I think your analogy is grossly flawed. For Facebook and Google to do what we want them to, they have no choice but to constantly invade our privacy. The very features we desire most from them are directly related to and tied to our personal information. By contrast, a police department absolutely does not require a single officer to commit violent crimes in order for them to keep the peace, arrest criminals, and protect the public.