6 ms·

that specific business activity is 7 years of non-compliance on top of however many years they had no actual user privacy before their 2012 agreement. That spe

that specific business activity is 7 years of non-compliance on top of however many years they had no actual user privacy before their 2012 agreement. That specific business activity is selling information to advertisers, which is their entire business model. So scale the fine to make 10 years of selling ads irrationally risky? I'm okay with that.

tptacek 7y ago
See, there's the problem. The FTC lacks the authority to fine Facebook for "10 years of selling ads", or really, anything outside of behavior they can prove violated Facebook's consent decree. The distinction here is behavior that we disapprove of and behavior the FTC does (or should) have the ability to sanction. If the FTC can fine Facebook $5B† for a (comparatively) minor violation as a way of expressing the agency's disapproval for all the rest of Facebook's business practices, it can do that to anyone. It can, for instance, fine Apple tens of billions for minor, provable violations as a way of coercing them into cooperating with law enforcement to unlock phones. Again, I do not like Facebook, broadly agree with 'idlewords testimony before the Senate today that his necktie is more tightly regulated than our industry, and want that to change. I do not think the FTC should be able to make up the rules as it goes, especially not as a way for politicians to showboat. † or whatever you think the appropriate number is; I'm happy to stipulate that $3-5B is the appropriate range for the fine
- Avshalom 7y ago
  The FTC not having the legal authority is a very different argument than your first post which just stated they shouldn't... as a principle. As to blackmailing Apple: while Cambridge analytical is a (maybe) minor violation the fact that it happened is again evidence of 7 years of non compliance with a previous settlement and it is a fundamental part of their business model. I would probably have a different stance if Facebook was being fined umpteen billion for like bribing a doctor for unneeded handicap parking placards.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    If the people want to elect representatives who pass a law declaring companies like Facebook systemically risky and authorizing their breakup, I'm ambivalent. What I have a real problem with is the federal government seizing on an offense that would ordinarily merit a $10MM fine (or $100MM or $5B) and ratcheting it way up as a way of signaling disapproval for actions not part of the underlying offense, which is essentially what I believe everyone advocating for higher fines is doing. I think there's some blurriness here because people seem to believe that the violation FTC is pursuing had something to do with Facebook's whole business. That is not my understanding. As I understand it, what set FTC off here was the pattern of violations surrounding the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which Facebook partners were given more access to user profile data than users expected or would have consented to. That's bad! But it is hard to argue, knowing a little bit about Facebook's business, that those violations were a major component of Facebook's revenue. Thus: Facebook's revenue is not the figure of interest in deriving a fine.
    - Avshalom 7y ago
      Facebook giving advertisers more access to user profile data than users expected is AGAIN the entire fucking point of the 2012 settlement. That Facebook was capable of giving a relatively tiny ass ad company that access is AGAIN evidence that they had been in non compliance with that settlement for 7 years. And when selling access to user profile data is their entire value-add over any other given ad network AND rando-ass companies (which CA definitely was) can pay for data that Facebook told users was private: there is no untangling it from revenue from companies that didn't take advantage of that abuse of privacy, there is just what companies we know for sure and what companies could have.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        That they did it AGAIN is the basis for there being a relatively significant fine in the first place. It does not follow that the purpose of that fine should be to cripple Facebook, not because crippling Facebook is bad, but because there is no reasonable basis in law to do so. Again, the significance of the fine is relative to the offense, not the entity. We also don’t fine Mark Zuckerberg 10MM for being late (AGAIN) for paying parking tickets.

tptacek 7y ago

See, there's the problem. The FTC lacks the authority to fine Facebook for "10 years of selling ads", or really, anything outside of behavior they can prove violated Facebook's consent decree. The distinction here is behavior that we disapprove of and behavior the FTC does (or should) have the ability to sanction. If the FTC can fine Facebook $5B† for a (comparatively) minor violation as a way of expressing the agency's disapproval for all the rest of Facebook's business practices, it can do that to anyone. It can, for instance, fine Apple tens of billions for minor, provable violations as a way of coercing them into cooperating with law enforcement to unlock phones. Again, I do not like Facebook, broadly agree with 'idlewords testimony before the Senate today that his necktie is more tightly regulated than our industry, and want that to change. I do not think the FTC should be able to make up the rules as it goes, especially not as a way for politicians to showboat. † or whatever you think the appropriate number is; I'm happy to stipulate that $3-5B is the appropriate range for the fine

Avshalom 7y ago
The FTC not having the legal authority is a very different argument than your first post which just stated they shouldn't... as a principle. As to blackmailing Apple: while Cambridge analytical is a (maybe) minor violation the fact that it happened is again evidence of 7 years of non compliance with a previous settlement and it is a fundamental part of their business model. I would probably have a different stance if Facebook was being fined umpteen billion for like bribing a doctor for unneeded handicap parking placards.
- tptacek 7y ago
  If the people want to elect representatives who pass a law declaring companies like Facebook systemically risky and authorizing their breakup, I'm ambivalent. What I have a real problem with is the federal government seizing on an offense that would ordinarily merit a $10MM fine (or $100MM or $5B) and ratcheting it way up as a way of signaling disapproval for actions not part of the underlying offense, which is essentially what I believe everyone advocating for higher fines is doing. I think there's some blurriness here because people seem to believe that the violation FTC is pursuing had something to do with Facebook's whole business. That is not my understanding. As I understand it, what set FTC off here was the pattern of violations surrounding the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which Facebook partners were given more access to user profile data than users expected or would have consented to. That's bad! But it is hard to argue, knowing a little bit about Facebook's business, that those violations were a major component of Facebook's revenue. Thus: Facebook's revenue is not the figure of interest in deriving a fine.
  - Avshalom 7y ago
    Facebook giving advertisers more access to user profile data than users expected is AGAIN the entire fucking point of the 2012 settlement. That Facebook was capable of giving a relatively tiny ass ad company that access is AGAIN evidence that they had been in non compliance with that settlement for 7 years. And when selling access to user profile data is their entire value-add over any other given ad network AND rando-ass companies (which CA definitely was) can pay for data that Facebook told users was private: there is no untangling it from revenue from companies that didn't take advantage of that abuse of privacy, there is just what companies we know for sure and what companies could have.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      That they did it AGAIN is the basis for there being a relatively significant fine in the first place. It does not follow that the purpose of that fine should be to cripple Facebook, not because crippling Facebook is bad, but because there is no reasonable basis in law to do so. Again, the significance of the fine is relative to the offense, not the entity. We also don’t fine Mark Zuckerberg 10MM for being late (AGAIN) for paying parking tickets.