14 ms·

Google Feels the Brunt of GDPR Enforcement

51 points by basicplus2 8y ago

lawrenceyan 8y ago
I can't help but feel like there exists a certain amount of jealousy/envy that exists on the EU side in regards to American technology companies. Perhaps this stems somewhat from the inability of European countries to cultivate a foundation of successful innovation in relation to software/computation like the Silicon Valley or greater Bay Area has in the United States? In my opinion, instead of focusing on regulation to hamper outside competition, the better option would be to spend more on funding innovation/growth efforts for local companies and startups so that they can better compete solely based on the merits of the technology or service itself. This in the long term will provide far more for European countries and its citizens than, again this is just my opinion and it's definitely not necessarily purely black or white here, the short term oriented sort of feel good action that something like the GDPR I believe represents.
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  Take a look at the fundraising rules in the EU compared to the US. That probably explains a lot why the EU lags.
- Tomte 8y ago
  "Merits of technology" includes privacy. Privacy is a basic right here. We get it that you are against it and want "everything goes". That doesn't make enforcement a protectionist matter.
  - staplers 8y ago
    American foreign policy is to tell other countries to fuck off, yet get uppity when other countries do the same.
    - thereisnospork 8y ago
      Because that's the game: e.g. Its not 'bad' or improper that Russia tries to influence American elections, its a failing of America that American elections were influenced. Countries exist to serve the citizens of that country so damn right America should tell other countries to fuck off: because they can and do so when it is (presumptively) good for Americans. (and damn right the Russians should try and influence American elections, Brexit, etc. if they feel it is in their interest) What superficially is a hypocritical position is merely 'I do what's good for me'. Not endearing I suppose, but its not supposed to be.
- abraae 8y ago
  Spoken from the point of view of the company. From the point of view of an individual, I wish GDPR-type principles - that my personal data is mine, and that I have the right to see, to challenge and delete the personal data that you, the company, are holding on me - would be binding in other regions. I'd love to see the new social giants - US or not - that might emerge in a post-surveillance environment.
- ggm 8y ago
  I think "jealousy" is the wrong word to use always, "the lord my god is a jealous god" being the instantiator of why thats the wrong word. But specifically envy is probably wrong. I don't think the EU is "envious" of the US, except in as much as the US secures trade advantages from its power, and asymmetrical bargaining approaches. EU investment in R&D is pretty good. GDPR was a reaction to individual rights to privacy which had beneficial upsides of addressing extra-territorial data, in ways which favour the EU position. It interested me that Microsoft (for instance) was a stand out company recognizing its presence in Europe demanded it respect European data laws, and since its taxation strategy demanded the shelf-company in Ireland be less craven, and more clearly Irish, it probably suited them to say no to US court requests for warrantless (or US warrant) data access. Google, who also have a huge presence in Ireland, has no rational posture here. The only economy which gets a clear signal of intent is the US. US federal agencies can stipulate data is in the US. Everyone else, all bets are off and all law is subject to Googles interpretation of what favours the US google, not the local google office. To Silicon Valley, It is possibly true what you write. Europe has struggled to make a single instance locale which is pan-european but does the same thing. On the other hand each economies discrete investment method like the Wolfson institute VLSI funded work in the UK and the various German innovation science centres which are Max Planck Branded, They are world-class. and I don't think you should ignore CERN and its impact. European computer initiatives did cave to the US chip moment, but its not there is "nothing" there as much as the IPR model of doing brilliant science and then whoring the IPR worldwide naturally lead to the Saudi and Japanese investments taking control of things otherwise in the USA held to be strategic. Hollywood isn't that different in the end: there are good European film studios, but you can't break the dominance of the hollywood investment. Elstree, and Cinecitta remain alive. This is not a "regulation to hamper competition" thing, this is trade war. Competition is happening come what may. People chose to buy German technology from small to medium enterprises because they get bespoke quality which lasts centuries. They buy American mass-produced technology for a disposable culture. But the minute they want something in the cross over space, they might be buying from either. You might want to consider the car industry. Mercedes invested in Tesla. Ford and GM have largely depended on state and federal teat-funded money to prop up pretty bad business models on big iron engines, and buy in better tech from Europe and Japan when it suits them. Meanwhile... BMW and others set up in Mexico, the US, to sell product into america but the money goes back into EU coffers.
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  You obviously haven't spent too much time around Europeans. They (we) think about totally different things to Americans in general. Privacy (especially in Germany) has always been a hot topic. You can barely use your card to pay for things anywhere in Berlin for example because people use cash to not be tracked.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    A substantial proportion of Germans remember the Stasi. Some remember the Gestapo. The idea of databases becoming the tools of oppression is not an abstract risk to the German people. Entirely justifiably, they broadly regard bulk collection of personal data as a dire threat to liberty. Many Europeans live with the memory of similarly awful tyrannies, from Franco in Spain to Ceaușescu in Romania. To dismiss those concerns as mere jealousy of Silicon Valley is rather churlish.
    - gowld 8y ago
      The Germans might remember something slightly older than the Stasi.
      - jdietrich 8y ago
        I refer you to the second sentence of my comment. With that said, it is worth remembering that only a small number of very elderly people have meaningful first-hand memories of the social and political circumstances of the 1930s and 1940s. The Stasi is clearly a more pertinent example of the perils of mass surveillance. The scale and sophistication of their surveillance is the closest historical parallel to contemporary digital surveillance, and many currently-serving politicians and civil servants have first-hand experience of it. Germany is still dealing with the legacy of decades of pervasive surveillance and the billions of records collected by that agency. A notable example of those records is a Stasi identity card, issued to major Vladimir Putin of the KGB. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46525543 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46525543
  - what_ever 8y ago
- minikites 8y ago
  >compete solely based on the merits of the technology or service itself This is an extremely simplistic view of national and international economies. The information asymmetry between producers and consumers that exists for almost every product or service should be enough to disqualify the idea that people judge products/services solely based on their merits.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  Why is it so hard to believe that other people might have a different set of values from you?
- balabaster 8y ago
  If my search for development jobs in the UK over the past 20 years so I could move back home offers any form of enlightenment, it's that the EU doesn't value software developers. They offer shit salaries compared to North American companies for similar/same work. A senior developer with 25 years of experience and continually golden references can expect a near 75% pay cut for the privilege of moving to the UK. Near as I can tell, the only companies offering similar pay scales to the U.S. are in Scandinavia. Until Europe looks at software development in the same manner as North America, you can expect them to continue failing to cultivate a foundation of successful innovation. If you want to earn decent money to become a developer, then only real option you have to chase a decent career is to leave Europe, and unfortunately once you've done that, there's no real option to go back without a substantial hit to your quality of life.
- p1necone 8y ago
  You believe the GDPR was created primarily to hamper outside competition? That's a very cynical viewpoint to take, do you have any evidence?
  - thereisnospork 8y ago
    Cynical sure, but hardly unreasonable considering the obvious incentives of money and national pride.
    - p1necone 8y ago
      I found the wording of the comment particularly grating because it seemed to take this as an axiom, assuming that everyone else agreed that that's what the GDPR was. Hiding assumptions like that is a dishonest way to communicate. It also doesn't make a huge amount of sense - the GDPR applies to companies operating inside the EU market, both foreign and domestic.
      - thereisnospork 8y ago
        > It also doesn't make a huge amount of sense - the GDPR applies to companies operating inside the EU market, both foreign and domestic. Enforcement however is at the discretion of European courts, and as noted previously, affects companies disproportionately foreign. If the EU can (slowly) force a foster a segmentation in the internet, similar to China with Baidu et. all, there are obvious economic benefits The parent's wording aside, I wouldn't consider it prudent to assume any regulation is benevolently intended. Better to judge on game-theoretical merits. Which makes me suspicious of the GDPR in no small part because of its vagueness and the potential for selective enforcement.
        p1necone 8y ago
        So there's parts of your argument too that are buried in unstated assumptions? By (pretending?) to think that all the stuff that others actually disagree with in your argument is accepted and doesn't need to be said, and just stating the things that logically follow on from those unstated axioms you're adding very little of value to the conversation. I see this a lot from people on extreme ends of the political spectrum, I can only assume it's to make your ideas look trivially correct to people who aren't reading what you're saying very carefully. Or perhaps because some are deluded about how common their opinions are?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > In my opinion, instead of focusing on regulation to hamper outside competition The word that you are looking for is "unfair", not "outside". It's not like European companies don't have to follow that same regulation. > the better option would be to spend more on funding innovation/growth efforts for local companies and startups so that they can better compete solely based on the merits of the technology or service itself. WTF? So, some company is externalizing the costs of their abusive behaviour on the public to gain a competetive advantage. The government puts regulation in place to make sure such unfair practices don't work anymore, so companies have to compete on the basis of the merit of their technology or service instead. And your suggestion is that they should instead pay subsidies to local companies only, because what they are doing is unfair to foreign companies? Seriously, what am I missing that that makes any sense at all?
- kelnos 8y ago
  Perhaps it's just that Europeans value privacy more than anything-goes economic development? Maybe Europeans have decided that people come first, and corporate interests second? And I say this as an American who has been working at tech companies his entire career. I'm pleased that California has decided to enact similar policies (though I'm not happy with how it was forced through the legislature).
- joejerryronnie 8y ago
  GDPR + Vestager’s crusade against US tech + digital tax is clearly EU protectionism. Unfortunately, none of this is going to help European tech, it’s just going to move US tech out to make way for Chinese tech.
everdev 8y ago
Crazy idea, but why not put the onus on the browser and require that EU browsers have the ability to block and manage cookies and tracking scripts. Much less to regulate plus we wouldn't have ugly banners all over the place.
- pacala 8y ago
  It is trivial to uniquely fingerprint a browser, even if there are no cookies involved. Surveillance can and should be fought off in the legal sphere.
  - c22 8y ago
    So some incentive to design non-fingerprintable browsers sounds great! Especially since such a product would require widespread deployment to be effective.
    - Etheryte 8y ago
      I haven't worked through the grunt work myself, but I'm fairly certain it's basically not possible to design a completely fingerprint-proof browser so long as a browser includes a programmable Turing machine via Javascript, not to mention network request statistic info etc, all of which are used by completely legitimate websites to improve their experience & performance.
    - pacala 8y ago
      Modern ML can fingerprint you based on your mouse movements. Good luck selling a browser without mousemove events.
      - wtallis 8y ago
        The vast majority of web sites don't need mousemove events except to enable bad UI design. The exceptions that are trying to implement a desktop app or video game inside the browser can ask for permission. It's not at all hard for users to make the one or two clicks necessary to grant a domain permission to use the bundle of advanced features it is requesting, and it gives them a reasonable opportunity to provide informed consent before a website starts monitoring their every move.
fmajid 8y ago
Well yes, given they are the most egregious violator with Facebook, it's to be expected they would be among the first hit, and the hardest. This complaint also only scratches the surface.
buboard 8y ago
Sad that these are the only euro tech news
- fvdessen 8y ago
  Well this week we've seen the first Belgian Unicorn (Collibra) but that news didn't seem to reach HN. http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/technology/13911/brussels-data-company-collibra-is-worth-more-than-one-billion-dollars http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/technology/13911/bruss...
hhanesand 8y ago
50 mil USD is not anywhere close to “hitting Google hard in the coffers”. I get it’s a much bigger fine to what was levied before, but let’s be realistic about the impact here...
- hermitdev 8y ago
  This was my thought as well. Firat thing I thought is the EU might as well be pissing into the wind. 57M euros? Won't even make a blip on Google's revenue sheet.
- LeoPanthera 8y ago
  The fine is in addition to enforcement. It's not a fee they can pay to avoid GDPR compliance. They have to do that as well.
  - BariumBlue 8y ago
    How's it being enforced, though? Short of outright arresting people, the usual enforcement tactic is to use fines
    - kuhhk 8y ago
      Not sure, but if the 57m EUR fines continue monthly for noncompliance? Weekly? Perhaps that will do more to turn their course..
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      If that enforcement tactic is ineffective, the EU can obviously elevate it's methodology. Companies which do business, transfer monies, and have offices and employees in the territory have a lot of potential assets to seize. Usually fines, which are levied on a regular basis, until compliance is reached, are adequate.
    - IanCal 8y ago
      If nothing else, the fines should continue and I expect escalate.
zatempat80 8y ago
Well good, especially for fining the company that was storing passwords in plane text.

51 points by basicplus2 8y ago

I can't help but feel like there exists a certain amount of jealousy/envy that exists on the EU side in regards to American technology companies. Perhaps this stems somewhat from the inability of European countries to cultivate a foundation of successful innovation in relation to software/computation like the Silicon Valley or greater Bay Area has in the United States? In my opinion, instead of focusing on regulation to hamper outside competition, the better option would be to spend more on funding innovation/growth efforts for local companies and startups so that they can better compete solely based on the merits of the technology or service itself. This in the long term will provide far more for European countries and its citizens than, again this is just my opinion and it's definitely not necessarily purely black or white here, the short term oriented sort of feel good action that something like the GDPR I believe represents.

rdlecler1 8y ago
Take a look at the fundraising rules in the EU compared to the US. That probably explains a lot why the EU lags.
Tomte 8y ago
"Merits of technology" includes privacy. Privacy is a basic right here. We get it that you are against it and want "everything goes". That doesn't make enforcement a protectionist matter.
- staplers 8y ago
  American foreign policy is to tell other countries to fuck off, yet get uppity when other countries do the same.
  - thereisnospork 8y ago
    Because that's the game: e.g. Its not 'bad' or improper that Russia tries to influence American elections, its a failing of America that American elections were influenced. Countries exist to serve the citizens of that country so damn right America should tell other countries to fuck off: because they can and do so when it is (presumptively) good for Americans. (and damn right the Russians should try and influence American elections, Brexit, etc. if they feel it is in their interest) What superficially is a hypocritical position is merely 'I do what's good for me'. Not endearing I suppose, but its not supposed to be.
abraae 8y ago
Spoken from the point of view of the company. From the point of view of an individual, I wish GDPR-type principles - that my personal data is mine, and that I have the right to see, to challenge and delete the personal data that you, the company, are holding on me - would be binding in other regions. I'd love to see the new social giants - US or not - that might emerge in a post-surveillance environment.
ggm 8y ago
I think "jealousy" is the wrong word to use always, "the lord my god is a jealous god" being the instantiator of why thats the wrong word. But specifically envy is probably wrong. I don't think the EU is "envious" of the US, except in as much as the US secures trade advantages from its power, and asymmetrical bargaining approaches. EU investment in R&D is pretty good. GDPR was a reaction to individual rights to privacy which had beneficial upsides of addressing extra-territorial data, in ways which favour the EU position. It interested me that Microsoft (for instance) was a stand out company recognizing its presence in Europe demanded it respect European data laws, and since its taxation strategy demanded the shelf-company in Ireland be less craven, and more clearly Irish, it probably suited them to say no to US court requests for warrantless (or US warrant) data access. Google, who also have a huge presence in Ireland, has no rational posture here. The only economy which gets a clear signal of intent is the US. US federal agencies can stipulate data is in the US. Everyone else, all bets are off and all law is subject to Googles interpretation of what favours the US google, not the local google office. To Silicon Valley, It is possibly true what you write. Europe has struggled to make a single instance locale which is pan-european but does the same thing. On the other hand each economies discrete investment method like the Wolfson institute VLSI funded work in the UK and the various German innovation science centres which are Max Planck Branded, They are world-class. and I don't think you should ignore CERN and its impact. European computer initiatives did cave to the US chip moment, but its not there is "nothing" there as much as the IPR model of doing brilliant science and then whoring the IPR worldwide naturally lead to the Saudi and Japanese investments taking control of things otherwise in the USA held to be strategic. Hollywood isn't that different in the end: there are good European film studios, but you can't break the dominance of the hollywood investment. Elstree, and Cinecitta remain alive. This is not a "regulation to hamper competition" thing, this is trade war. Competition is happening come what may. People chose to buy German technology from small to medium enterprises because they get bespoke quality which lasts centuries. They buy American mass-produced technology for a disposable culture. But the minute they want something in the cross over space, they might be buying from either. You might want to consider the car industry. Mercedes invested in Tesla. Ford and GM have largely depended on state and federal teat-funded money to prop up pretty bad business models on big iron engines, and buy in better tech from Europe and Japan when it suits them. Meanwhile... BMW and others set up in Mexico, the US, to sell product into america but the money goes back into EU coffers.
rorykoehler 8y ago
You obviously haven't spent too much time around Europeans. They (we) think about totally different things to Americans in general. Privacy (especially in Germany) has always been a hot topic. You can barely use your card to pay for things anywhere in Berlin for example because people use cash to not be tracked.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  A substantial proportion of Germans remember the Stasi. Some remember the Gestapo. The idea of databases becoming the tools of oppression is not an abstract risk to the German people. Entirely justifiably, they broadly regard bulk collection of personal data as a dire threat to liberty. Many Europeans live with the memory of similarly awful tyrannies, from Franco in Spain to Ceaușescu in Romania. To dismiss those concerns as mere jealousy of Silicon Valley is rather churlish.
  - gowld 8y ago
    The Germans might remember something slightly older than the Stasi.
    - jdietrich 8y ago
      I refer you to the second sentence of my comment. With that said, it is worth remembering that only a small number of very elderly people have meaningful first-hand memories of the social and political circumstances of the 1930s and 1940s. The Stasi is clearly a more pertinent example of the perils of mass surveillance. The scale and sophistication of their surveillance is the closest historical parallel to contemporary digital surveillance, and many currently-serving politicians and civil servants have first-hand experience of it. Germany is still dealing with the legacy of decades of pervasive surveillance and the billions of records collected by that agency. A notable example of those records is a Stasi identity card, issued to major Vladimir Putin of the KGB. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46525543 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46525543
- what_ever 8y ago
minikites 8y ago
>compete solely based on the merits of the technology or service itself This is an extremely simplistic view of national and international economies. The information asymmetry between producers and consumers that exists for almost every product or service should be enough to disqualify the idea that people judge products/services solely based on their merits.
anigbrowl 8y ago
Why is it so hard to believe that other people might have a different set of values from you?
balabaster 8y ago
If my search for development jobs in the UK over the past 20 years so I could move back home offers any form of enlightenment, it's that the EU doesn't value software developers. They offer shit salaries compared to North American companies for similar/same work. A senior developer with 25 years of experience and continually golden references can expect a near 75% pay cut for the privilege of moving to the UK. Near as I can tell, the only companies offering similar pay scales to the U.S. are in Scandinavia. Until Europe looks at software development in the same manner as North America, you can expect them to continue failing to cultivate a foundation of successful innovation. If you want to earn decent money to become a developer, then only real option you have to chase a decent career is to leave Europe, and unfortunately once you've done that, there's no real option to go back without a substantial hit to your quality of life.
p1necone 8y ago
You believe the GDPR was created primarily to hamper outside competition? That's a very cynical viewpoint to take, do you have any evidence?
- thereisnospork 8y ago
  Cynical sure, but hardly unreasonable considering the obvious incentives of money and national pride.
  - p1necone 8y ago
    I found the wording of the comment particularly grating because it seemed to take this as an axiom, assuming that everyone else agreed that that's what the GDPR was. Hiding assumptions like that is a dishonest way to communicate. It also doesn't make a huge amount of sense - the GDPR applies to companies operating inside the EU market, both foreign and domestic.
    - thereisnospork 8y ago
      > It also doesn't make a huge amount of sense - the GDPR applies to companies operating inside the EU market, both foreign and domestic. Enforcement however is at the discretion of European courts, and as noted previously, affects companies disproportionately foreign. If the EU can (slowly) force a foster a segmentation in the internet, similar to China with Baidu et. all, there are obvious economic benefits The parent's wording aside, I wouldn't consider it prudent to assume any regulation is benevolently intended. Better to judge on game-theoretical merits. Which makes me suspicious of the GDPR in no small part because of its vagueness and the potential for selective enforcement.
      - p1necone 8y ago
        So there's parts of your argument too that are buried in unstated assumptions? By (pretending?) to think that all the stuff that others actually disagree with in your argument is accepted and doesn't need to be said, and just stating the things that logically follow on from those unstated axioms you're adding very little of value to the conversation. I see this a lot from people on extreme ends of the political spectrum, I can only assume it's to make your ideas look trivially correct to people who aren't reading what you're saying very carefully. Or perhaps because some are deluded about how common their opinions are?
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> In my opinion, instead of focusing on regulation to hamper outside competition The word that you are looking for is "unfair", not "outside". It's not like European companies don't have to follow that same regulation. > the better option would be to spend more on funding innovation/growth efforts for local companies and startups so that they can better compete solely based on the merits of the technology or service itself. WTF? So, some company is externalizing the costs of their abusive behaviour on the public to gain a competetive advantage. The government puts regulation in place to make sure such unfair practices don't work anymore, so companies have to compete on the basis of the merit of their technology or service instead. And your suggestion is that they should instead pay subsidies to local companies only, because what they are doing is unfair to foreign companies? Seriously, what am I missing that that makes any sense at all?
kelnos 8y ago
Perhaps it's just that Europeans value privacy more than anything-goes economic development? Maybe Europeans have decided that people come first, and corporate interests second? And I say this as an American who has been working at tech companies his entire career. I'm pleased that California has decided to enact similar policies (though I'm not happy with how it was forced through the legislature).
joejerryronnie 8y ago
GDPR + Vestager’s crusade against US tech + digital tax is clearly EU protectionism. Unfortunately, none of this is going to help European tech, it’s just going to move US tech out to make way for Chinese tech.

everdev 8y ago

Crazy idea, but why not put the onus on the browser and require that EU browsers have the ability to block and manage cookies and tracking scripts. Much less to regulate plus we wouldn't have ugly banners all over the place.

pacala 8y ago
It is trivial to uniquely fingerprint a browser, even if there are no cookies involved. Surveillance can and should be fought off in the legal sphere.
- c22 8y ago
  So some incentive to design non-fingerprintable browsers sounds great! Especially since such a product would require widespread deployment to be effective.
  - Etheryte 8y ago
    I haven't worked through the grunt work myself, but I'm fairly certain it's basically not possible to design a completely fingerprint-proof browser so long as a browser includes a programmable Turing machine via Javascript, not to mention network request statistic info etc, all of which are used by completely legitimate websites to improve their experience & performance.
  - pacala 8y ago
    Modern ML can fingerprint you based on your mouse movements. Good luck selling a browser without mousemove events.
    - wtallis 8y ago
      The vast majority of web sites don't need mousemove events except to enable bad UI design. The exceptions that are trying to implement a desktop app or video game inside the browser can ask for permission. It's not at all hard for users to make the one or two clicks necessary to grant a domain permission to use the bundle of advanced features it is requesting, and it gives them a reasonable opportunity to provide informed consent before a website starts monitoring their every move.

fmajid 8y ago

Well yes, given they are the most egregious violator with Facebook, it's to be expected they would be among the first hit, and the hardest. This complaint also only scratches the surface.

buboard 8y ago

Sad that these are the only euro tech news

fvdessen 8y ago
Well this week we've seen the first Belgian Unicorn (Collibra) but that news didn't seem to reach HN. http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/technology/13911/brussels-data-company-collibra-is-worth-more-than-one-billion-dollars http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/technology/13911/bruss...

hhanesand 8y ago

50 mil USD is not anywhere close to “hitting Google hard in the coffers”. I get it’s a much bigger fine to what was levied before, but let’s be realistic about the impact here...

hermitdev 8y ago
This was my thought as well. Firat thing I thought is the EU might as well be pissing into the wind. 57M euros? Won't even make a blip on Google's revenue sheet.
LeoPanthera 8y ago
The fine is in addition to enforcement. It's not a fee they can pay to avoid GDPR compliance. They have to do that as well.
- BariumBlue 8y ago
  How's it being enforced, though? Short of outright arresting people, the usual enforcement tactic is to use fines
  - kuhhk 8y ago
    Not sure, but if the 57m EUR fines continue monthly for noncompliance? Weekly? Perhaps that will do more to turn their course..
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    If that enforcement tactic is ineffective, the EU can obviously elevate it's methodology. Companies which do business, transfer monies, and have offices and employees in the territory have a lot of potential assets to seize. Usually fines, which are levied on a regular basis, until compliance is reached, are adequate.
  - IanCal 8y ago
    If nothing else, the fines should continue and I expect escalate.

zatempat80 8y ago

Well good, especially for fining the company that was storing passwords in plane text.