9 ms·

This presents an interesting opportunity for the FTC. The amount of data being amassed by Facebook, Google and others has become exorbitant, and apparently has

This presents an interesting opportunity for the FTC. The amount of data being amassed by Facebook, Google and others has become exorbitant, and apparently has already been abused (some might even say weaponized) in a major election. If Facebook indeed violated the 2011 consent decree, then the FTC can fine them up to "thousands of dollars a day per violation [per user]". This presents the FTC with the opportunity to send a message to these data hoarders: protect the data you collect, or else. Fine them to the point where they have to start asking themselves whether it's even worth it to collect and store certain data, and with whom to share it. It shouldn't be the government's job to ensure that the data gets protected, this should be in Facebook's own self interest.

mlb_hn 9y ago
To your second point, I argued this sort of data was weaponsized and not just in an election (http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2017/November/Data-Driven-Propaganda/ http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives...). To the third point, focusing on Facebook seems like that scene from Casa Blanca though: "There's gambling going on, I'm shocked, shocked" "Your winnings, sir" Not confident FTC fines would actually change any trends.
- crowbahr 9y ago
  Last I saw there were over 1 million accounts distributed by CA. Even assuming they were only distributed 3 months (unlikely) and there were only 1 million accounts (also unlikely) the maximum fine is: 1000x1000000x90 = 90 billion dollars. Imposing the maximum fine would be more than double their entire 4th quarter earnings last year. That's a bite. That would hurt any company.
  - apeace 9y ago
    From this article: > If the FTC finds Facebook violated terms of the consent decree, it has the power to fine the company more than $40,000 a day per violation. > Facebook Inc. is under investigation by a U.S. privacy watchdog over the use of personal data of 50 million users So I think the maximum (assuming this went on for 90 days) would be: 40,000 x 50,000,000 x 90 = 180,000,000,000,000 180 Trillion.
    - justinzollars 9y ago
      I think the world would be a better place if they just pulled the plug on the fb. Donald Trump is one really really bad outcome.
      - watwat1 9y ago
        Facebook didn’t elect trump. The us populace did.
        yellow_postit 9y ago
        The US populace that lives in key electoral college swing states... what a convoluted system.
        justinzollars 9y ago
        Thanks for clearing this matter up.
      - ihsw2 9y ago
        Hillary lost because she was the worst Democrat candidate in history. She had MSM, the entirety of liberal America, all major tech companies, most/all colleges, illegals voting en masse -- all of these organizations were united in their support for Hillary, and she still lost. The Dems had the election on a silver platter and they still lost because Hillary was awful. Hillary lost the election, if it wasn't her it would've been a win.
        krapp 9y ago
        Calling Hillary the "worst Democratic candidate in history" is just a meme - she was perfectly qualified for the job, more so than Donald Trump, anyway. What she wasn't was photogenic, charismatic or capable of not coming across as "a politician" at a time when both parties were in a disgruntled, antiestablishment mood. I think she and the DNC felt it was finally "her time," and she didn't take Trump seriously, perhaps because she felt the winds of destiny were at her back. Unfortunately for her, Julian Assange decided to make it his religion to ruin her and Donald Trump happens to be very good at channeling populist antipathy. So it goes. >She had MSM, the entirety of liberal America, all major tech companies, most/all colleges, illegals voting en masse Ok. Let's go through this one by one... - The Democrats/leftists/DNC do not control the mainstream media. That's a conspiracy theory started by the right-wing fringe and Fox news, and of course, canonized by Trump and his supporters, in order to dismiss all criticism in the media as being manufactured. - The entirety of liberal America does not think and act in unison, nor were they entirely behind Hillary. Both parties were fractured this last election, and many Democrats who couldn't get Bernie wound up voting for Trump or stayed home. - All major tech companies are not liberal or leftist. There is a deep wellspring of right-wing, alt-right and libertarian ideology in tech and SV. - "most/all colleges" are also not automatically leftist. Plenty of right-wing, alt-right and libertarian ideology there as well. - "illegals voting en masse" is just a baseless conspiracy theory. You are correct that the race was Hillary's to lose. Unfortunately you couldn't resist running through the typical Trumpist hyperbole. Sad.
  - throwaway2048 9y ago
    i find it depressing that 90 billion dollars is only double the 4th quarter earnings.
  - Denzel 9y ago
    I'm not sure I follow your math. Facebook had the following figures at the close of 2017 per https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2018/Facebook-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2017-Results/default.aspx https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...: Earnings (Q4 2017): $4B Earnings (Y2017): $16B Revenue (Q4 2017): $13B Revenue (Y2017): $40B So, maybe you're confusing revenue with earnings (net income) and a quarter (3 months) with the entire year (12 months). Because $90B is over 20x FB's Q4 2017 earnings and over 5x their entire 2017 earnings.
    - crowbahr 9y ago
      I messed up. I saw their Q4 revenue statement and read the year end 40B as the Q4 revenue. My bad.
- sevensor 9y ago
  I just went and read the linked article -- it's definitely worth a look. Personally I hadn't seen media coverage of the evolving relationship between Russia and DPRK, so I learned something new.
- mistersquid 9y ago
  > To the third point, focusing on Facebook seems like that scene from Casa Blanca though It's mere coincidence, but your spelling "Casablanca" as two words (Casa Blanca) put into my mind that the literal translation of that place is "white house" (two words, natch). [0] To your point, yes, Facebook knows user data trafficking (gambling) goes on as well as the stakes of such trafficking. Facebook is the gatherer and ostensible guardians of such data, but they directly profit from such trafficking. Very likely their "interest" in user data security is pretense. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca#Etymology EDIT: recast second paragraph to more clearly convey intended meaning.
- adrr 9y ago
  I was the technology lead at Myspace for the Games Platform during the 2011 crackdown by the FTC. We took the FTC filings seriously and spent large amounts of cash and resources to prevent our data from making it to databrokers. Fines are one thing. FTC can shutdown or cripple your business. I bet if Facebook is found not to take reasonable steps to mitigate issues raised during the 2011 FTC investigation, they'll be forced to do yearly audits of every app on the platform and require KYC(know your customer) process for all app publishers. This will be very costly and we'll probably see the end of the FB graph API except for trusted and highly capitalized partners.
  - BryantD 9y ago
    I have not been involved in FTC decisions but I have worked at companies subject to FTC consent decrees. I agree with adrr's comment. The initial fines are not that big a deal; the work required to demonstrate compliance is non-trivial.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
this_user 9y ago
The problem for these companies is that hoarding and monetising data _is_ their business model. If they can't do that anymore, they are going to struggle in a serious way.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  That seems like a feature, not a problem.
- ckastner 9y ago
  They aren't going to struggle, their currently spectacular profits are just going to get somewhat more modest. This is what happened to the banking industry after the 2008 financial crisis.
- gfo 9y ago
  I've been wondering what kind of collapse would happen when something like this happened to a business where the majority of their revenue comes from monetizing their consumers. Of course, a collapse would only be possible if: * The FTC actually does something about this in a way that companies in a similar manner are also affected (directly or indirectly) * These companies don't find a way to get around the issues. I'm not convinced anything will significantly damage tech companies whose primary profit driver is their users' data anyway. The general public has been using them for years now and despite any outrage, it's become too integrated in society for people to suddenly stop (unless someone comes up with a better alternative).
- baq 9y ago
  I'll have two, please.
xienze 9y ago
> and apparently has already been abused (some might even say weaponized) in a major election. You mean major election_s_, right? I do seem to remember the Democrats crowing about how Obama's team had used social media to their advantage and Republicans were hopelessly outmatched in this arena. http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/20/friended-how-the-obama-campaign-connected-with-young-voters/ http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/20/friended-how-the-obama-... Fun tidbits: > But the Obama team had a solution in place: a Facebook application that will transform the way campaigns are conducted in the future. For supporters, the app appeared to be just another way to digitally connect to the campaign. But to the Windy City number crunchers, it was a game changer. “I think this will wind up being the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for this campaign,” says Teddy Goff, the Obama campaign’s digital director. > That’s because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In an instant, the campaign had a way to see the hidden young voters. Roughly 85% of those without a listed phone number could be found in the uploaded friend lists. Whoa, that sounds exactly like the "breach" we're talking about here! And a former Obama staffer confirms this: https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/20/ex-obama-staffer-claims-facebook-allowed-campaign-to-mine-user-data-because-they-were-on-our-side https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/20/ex-obama-staffer-cl... (yeah yeah "I don't trust your source", but it's just screenshots straight from the horse's mouth). Money quotes: > Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing. > They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.
- mistermann 9y ago
  I have a feeling this fact won't be making the six o'clock news "for some unknown reason".
  - xienze 9y ago
    You can see that already with the Obama staffer. Direct quotes from someone who was there yet the mainstream media simply isn't reporting on it. Just another right wing conspiracy, otherwise CNN would be talking about it, right? You do sometimes get bits and pieces like the Time article from 2012 that haven't been memory-holed yet, but again, the media won't bring up something like that because the intent to paint this chilling use of social media as something unique to the Trump campaign.
degenerate 9y ago
This is already how HIPAA forces data decisions in the health care industry. We ask ourselves: "Is it worth the time and effort to store patient PII?" If the answer is no, we don't store it.
downandout 9y ago
"...and apparently has already been abused (some might even say weaponized) in a major election." While it's clear that CA/Russians/whoever tried to influence the election through these techniques, is anyone aware of any studies or evidence that they actually affected anything at all? Has anyone even done a survey asking people if they either did not turn out to vote, or changed the candidate they were going to vote for, based on paid advertising they saw on Facebook? I'm genuinely curious about this, I'm not trying to be argumentative. After this erupted yesterday, I went looking and found nothing. This whole thing may be much ado about nothing.
- neuronexmachina 9y ago
  I think this ultimately comes down to the problem of attribution in marketing -- how do you determine if an ad or story is effective in actually influencing somebody to buy a product or vote for a candidate? We know millions of people engaged with content from Russian trolls masquerading as Americans, but (like any marketing campaign with an offline action) it's difficult to quantitatively measure the ultimate impact they had. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/the-russian-conspiracy-to-commit-audience-development/553685/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/the-r...
  - downandout 9y ago
    Yeah, but even a simple survey would at least start to unravel this. "Did you either fail to vote or change your vote based upon paid advertising you saw on Facebook?" would at least be a good start. Even anecdotal stories of people being swayed by a paid Facebook ad would be a start. I haven't seen a single one, and I've looked.
    - philipodonnell 9y ago
      The whole point of using the data like this is to change people's opinion without them knowing why, so I doubt anyone can answer a survey like this accurately.
lr4444lr 9y ago
When broadband got reclassified by the FCC under the "huge loss" for Net Neutrality, a little noticed M.O.U. was published as part of that decision that explicitly stated the FTC would be now be beefing up its presence to protect the consumer. It's only in Facebook's interest if they believe they'll get caught. If they think they can sell this data for profit and escape scrutiny, they will. Here's hoping this is a sign of more work to come from the FTC.
kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
Acxiom and others of the old guard have been doing exactly the same for 40+ years. Why should Facebook be singled out for voluntary disclosures when the data mining industry has far more aggregious transgressions.
swombat 9y ago
Isn't the FCC being run by a Trump shill at the moment? I mean, they just repealed net neutrality, I doubt they're going to go around imposing fines on Trump buddies now are they...
- Karunamon 9y ago
  FTC, not FCC in this case. And what was repealed was a huge blob of legislation called Title 2, not “net neutrality”.
  - telchar 9y ago
    Well net neutrality was repealed. Without title 2 there is really no net neutrality until some other law or regulation puts it back into place.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      The reason I make this distinction is because the limited neutrality is the least of what the legislation does.
greggarious 9y ago
>If Facebook indeed violated the 2011 consent decree, then the FTC can fine them up to "thousands of dollars a day per violation [per user]". This presents the FTC with the opportunity to send a message to these data hoarders: protect the data you collect, or else. No one ever seems to get the maximum fine in America, often because it would "destroy the company". But we're willing to execute living people. As the old adage says: I'll believe corporations are people when they execute one in Texas.

mlb_hn 9y ago

To your second point, I argued this sort of data was weaponsized and not just in an election (http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2017/November/Data-Driven-Propaganda/ http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives...). To the third point, focusing on Facebook seems like that scene from Casa Blanca though: "There's gambling going on, I'm shocked, shocked" "Your winnings, sir" Not confident FTC fines would actually change any trends.

crowbahr 9y ago
Last I saw there were over 1 million accounts distributed by CA. Even assuming they were only distributed 3 months (unlikely) and there were only 1 million accounts (also unlikely) the maximum fine is: 1000x1000000x90 = 90 billion dollars. Imposing the maximum fine would be more than double their entire 4th quarter earnings last year. That's a bite. That would hurt any company.
- apeace 9y ago
  From this article: > If the FTC finds Facebook violated terms of the consent decree, it has the power to fine the company more than $40,000 a day per violation. > Facebook Inc. is under investigation by a U.S. privacy watchdog over the use of personal data of 50 million users So I think the maximum (assuming this went on for 90 days) would be: 40,000 x 50,000,000 x 90 = 180,000,000,000,000 180 Trillion.
  - justinzollars 9y ago
    I think the world would be a better place if they just pulled the plug on the fb. Donald Trump is one really really bad outcome.
    - watwat1 9y ago
      Facebook didn’t elect trump. The us populace did.
      - yellow_postit 9y ago
        The US populace that lives in key electoral college swing states... what a convoluted system.
      - justinzollars 9y ago
        Thanks for clearing this matter up.
    - ihsw2 9y ago
      Hillary lost because she was the worst Democrat candidate in history. She had MSM, the entirety of liberal America, all major tech companies, most/all colleges, illegals voting en masse -- all of these organizations were united in their support for Hillary, and she still lost. The Dems had the election on a silver platter and they still lost because Hillary was awful. Hillary lost the election, if it wasn't her it would've been a win.
      - krapp 9y ago
        Calling Hillary the "worst Democratic candidate in history" is just a meme - she was perfectly qualified for the job, more so than Donald Trump, anyway. What she wasn't was photogenic, charismatic or capable of not coming across as "a politician" at a time when both parties were in a disgruntled, antiestablishment mood. I think she and the DNC felt it was finally "her time," and she didn't take Trump seriously, perhaps because she felt the winds of destiny were at her back. Unfortunately for her, Julian Assange decided to make it his religion to ruin her and Donald Trump happens to be very good at channeling populist antipathy. So it goes. >She had MSM, the entirety of liberal America, all major tech companies, most/all colleges, illegals voting en masse Ok. Let's go through this one by one... - The Democrats/leftists/DNC do not control the mainstream media. That's a conspiracy theory started by the right-wing fringe and Fox news, and of course, canonized by Trump and his supporters, in order to dismiss all criticism in the media as being manufactured. - The entirety of liberal America does not think and act in unison, nor were they entirely behind Hillary. Both parties were fractured this last election, and many Democrats who couldn't get Bernie wound up voting for Trump or stayed home. - All major tech companies are not liberal or leftist. There is a deep wellspring of right-wing, alt-right and libertarian ideology in tech and SV. - "most/all colleges" are also not automatically leftist. Plenty of right-wing, alt-right and libertarian ideology there as well. - "illegals voting en masse" is just a baseless conspiracy theory. You are correct that the race was Hillary's to lose. Unfortunately you couldn't resist running through the typical Trumpist hyperbole. Sad.
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  i find it depressing that 90 billion dollars is only double the 4th quarter earnings.
- Denzel 9y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your math. Facebook had the following figures at the close of 2017 per https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2018/Facebook-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2017-Results/default.aspx https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/...: Earnings (Q4 2017): $4B Earnings (Y2017): $16B Revenue (Q4 2017): $13B Revenue (Y2017): $40B So, maybe you're confusing revenue with earnings (net income) and a quarter (3 months) with the entire year (12 months). Because $90B is over 20x FB's Q4 2017 earnings and over 5x their entire 2017 earnings.
  - crowbahr 9y ago
    I messed up. I saw their Q4 revenue statement and read the year end 40B as the Q4 revenue. My bad.
sevensor 9y ago
I just went and read the linked article -- it's definitely worth a look. Personally I hadn't seen media coverage of the evolving relationship between Russia and DPRK, so I learned something new.
mistersquid 9y ago
> To the third point, focusing on Facebook seems like that scene from Casa Blanca though It's mere coincidence, but your spelling "Casablanca" as two words (Casa Blanca) put into my mind that the literal translation of that place is "white house" (two words, natch). [0] To your point, yes, Facebook knows user data trafficking (gambling) goes on as well as the stakes of such trafficking. Facebook is the gatherer and ostensible guardians of such data, but they directly profit from such trafficking. Very likely their "interest" in user data security is pretense. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca#Etymology EDIT: recast second paragraph to more clearly convey intended meaning.
adrr 9y ago
I was the technology lead at Myspace for the Games Platform during the 2011 crackdown by the FTC. We took the FTC filings seriously and spent large amounts of cash and resources to prevent our data from making it to databrokers. Fines are one thing. FTC can shutdown or cripple your business. I bet if Facebook is found not to take reasonable steps to mitigate issues raised during the 2011 FTC investigation, they'll be forced to do yearly audits of every app on the platform and require KYC(know your customer) process for all app publishers. This will be very costly and we'll probably see the end of the FB graph API except for trusted and highly capitalized partners.
- BryantD 9y ago
  I have not been involved in FTC decisions but I have worked at companies subject to FTC consent decrees. I agree with adrr's comment. The initial fines are not that big a deal; the work required to demonstrate compliance is non-trivial.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

this_user 9y ago

The problem for these companies is that hoarding and monetising data _is_ their business model. If they can't do that anymore, they are going to struggle in a serious way.

grasshopperpurp 9y ago
That seems like a feature, not a problem.
ckastner 9y ago
They aren't going to struggle, their currently spectacular profits are just going to get somewhat more modest. This is what happened to the banking industry after the 2008 financial crisis.
gfo 9y ago
I've been wondering what kind of collapse would happen when something like this happened to a business where the majority of their revenue comes from monetizing their consumers. Of course, a collapse would only be possible if: * The FTC actually does something about this in a way that companies in a similar manner are also affected (directly or indirectly) * These companies don't find a way to get around the issues. I'm not convinced anything will significantly damage tech companies whose primary profit driver is their users' data anyway. The general public has been using them for years now and despite any outrage, it's become too integrated in society for people to suddenly stop (unless someone comes up with a better alternative).
baq 9y ago
I'll have two, please.

xienze 9y ago

> and apparently has already been abused (some might even say weaponized) in a major election. You mean major election_s_, right? I do seem to remember the Democrats crowing about how Obama's team had used social media to their advantage and Republicans were hopelessly outmatched in this arena. http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/20/friended-how-the-obama-campaign-connected-with-young-voters/ http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/20/friended-how-the-obama-... Fun tidbits: > But the Obama team had a solution in place: a Facebook application that will transform the way campaigns are conducted in the future. For supporters, the app appeared to be just another way to digitally connect to the campaign. But to the Windy City number crunchers, it was a game changer. “I think this will wind up being the most groundbreaking piece of technology developed for this campaign,” says Teddy Goff, the Obama campaign’s digital director. > That’s because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In an instant, the campaign had a way to see the hidden young voters. Roughly 85% of those without a listed phone number could be found in the uploaded friend lists. Whoa, that sounds exactly like the "breach" we're talking about here! And a former Obama staffer confirms this: https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/20/ex-obama-staffer-claims-facebook-allowed-campaign-to-mine-user-data-because-they-were-on-our-side https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/03/20/ex-obama-staffer-cl... (yeah yeah "I don't trust your source", but it's just screenshots straight from the horse's mouth). Money quotes: > Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing. > They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.

mistermann 9y ago
I have a feeling this fact won't be making the six o'clock news "for some unknown reason".
- xienze 9y ago
  You can see that already with the Obama staffer. Direct quotes from someone who was there yet the mainstream media simply isn't reporting on it. Just another right wing conspiracy, otherwise CNN would be talking about it, right? You do sometimes get bits and pieces like the Time article from 2012 that haven't been memory-holed yet, but again, the media won't bring up something like that because the intent to paint this chilling use of social media as something unique to the Trump campaign.

degenerate 9y ago

This is already how HIPAA forces data decisions in the health care industry. We ask ourselves: "Is it worth the time and effort to store patient PII?" If the answer is no, we don't store it.

downandout 9y ago

"...and apparently has already been abused (some might even say weaponized) in a major election." While it's clear that CA/Russians/whoever tried to influence the election through these techniques, is anyone aware of any studies or evidence that they actually affected anything at all? Has anyone even done a survey asking people if they either did not turn out to vote, or changed the candidate they were going to vote for, based on paid advertising they saw on Facebook? I'm genuinely curious about this, I'm not trying to be argumentative. After this erupted yesterday, I went looking and found nothing. This whole thing may be much ado about nothing.

neuronexmachina 9y ago
I think this ultimately comes down to the problem of attribution in marketing -- how do you determine if an ad or story is effective in actually influencing somebody to buy a product or vote for a candidate? We know millions of people engaged with content from Russian trolls masquerading as Americans, but (like any marketing campaign with an offline action) it's difficult to quantitatively measure the ultimate impact they had. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/the-russian-conspiracy-to-commit-audience-development/553685/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/the-r...
- downandout 9y ago
  Yeah, but even a simple survey would at least start to unravel this. "Did you either fail to vote or change your vote based upon paid advertising you saw on Facebook?" would at least be a good start. Even anecdotal stories of people being swayed by a paid Facebook ad would be a start. I haven't seen a single one, and I've looked.
  - philipodonnell 9y ago
    The whole point of using the data like this is to change people's opinion without them knowing why, so I doubt anyone can answer a survey like this accurately.

lr4444lr 9y ago

When broadband got reclassified by the FCC under the "huge loss" for Net Neutrality, a little noticed M.O.U. was published as part of that decision that explicitly stated the FTC would be now be beefing up its presence to protect the consumer. It's only in Facebook's interest if they believe they'll get caught. If they think they can sell this data for profit and escape scrutiny, they will. Here's hoping this is a sign of more work to come from the FTC.

kevin_thibedeau 9y ago

Acxiom and others of the old guard have been doing exactly the same for 40+ years. Why should Facebook be singled out for voluntary disclosures when the data mining industry has far more aggregious transgressions.

swombat 9y ago

Isn't the FCC being run by a Trump shill at the moment? I mean, they just repealed net neutrality, I doubt they're going to go around imposing fines on Trump buddies now are they...

Karunamon 9y ago
FTC, not FCC in this case. And what was repealed was a huge blob of legislation called Title 2, not “net neutrality”.
- telchar 9y ago
  Well net neutrality was repealed. Without title 2 there is really no net neutrality until some other law or regulation puts it back into place.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    The reason I make this distinction is because the limited neutrality is the least of what the legislation does.

greggarious 9y ago

>If Facebook indeed violated the 2011 consent decree, then the FTC can fine them up to "thousands of dollars a day per violation [per user]". This presents the FTC with the opportunity to send a message to these data hoarders: protect the data you collect, or else. No one ever seems to get the maximum fine in America, often because it would "destroy the company". But we're willing to execute living people. As the old adage says: I'll believe corporations are people when they execute one in Texas.