23 ms·
FTC Imposes $5B Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook
- linuxdude314 7y agoIf there isn't escalation in price for violations past this in the future, this may just be the new price to play ball.
- tjoff 7y agoWhy would there not be any escalation?
- MichaelApproved 7y agoThe fear is that FB makes more donations to political campaigns which would ease the pressure on future violations. The campaign finance laws in the US are a joke and it would be easy for them to bribe politicians with campaign assistance.
- vikramkr 7y agoThis is not a sustainable amount to be fined. I think they made a net income around 20 billion last year, this a quarter of that. A couple more of these fines and that's a really dangerous situation - companies at Facebook's stage are valued on multiples of earnings with growth, not revenues, and 75 to 50 percent reduction in earnings wiped a lot of shareholder value off the table, meaning the shareholders (basically just zuck) would need to think twice before committing these violations again.
- throwaway2048 7y agoExcept it didn't whipe a lot of shareholder value off the table, the stock rose by 5% after fines were announced. Zuck himself made a cool billion off the bump.
- vikramkr 7y agoNews like this is already priced in and the market reaction is an irrational mix of random expectations. Some would have thought it would be more, some will think that this the end of Facebook's regulatory troubles, some will think that people overreacted over the last few days and are buying now that the uncertainty of the fine is gone and we know how the settlement stands. If this was a surprise 5 billion, then the stock would have dropped by way more than the 25% you might expect because of panic. You also have the growth story. A good way to put it is that the stock price would not have changed by more than a few percent today anyway, but in a world with no fine the starting price would have been higher. And in a world where we see more and more 5 billion dollar fines, they'll be less and less shrugged off as one offs even without increasing penalties.
- jakear 7y agoThat fines were coming was known, and reflected in the stock already. The announcement reduced uncertainty, causing value to rise.
- firebird84 7y agoA larger fine was priced in because investors were uncertain of earlier estimates of the fine being accurate. When the settlement news was announced, the stock bumped because it was better than expectations.
- Dirlewanger 7y agoThese kinds of fines are rarely lump-sums. The FTC will probably have Facebook on a nice 10 year plan for them to pay it.
- OliverJones 7y agoAccording to Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway, this fine is far too small to make a difference to Facebook's behavior. A fine of a size that exceeded their free cash ($40 billion) would have given FB a huge incentive to clean up their act. A fine of this size is nothing but a toll to pay.
- vineyardmike 7y agoDon'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.
- FireBeyond 7y agoOooh, not quite. IANAL, but I've worked with enough to know exactly what this means. Facebook is required to _report_ how they handle privacy data. They can choose what that handling looks like. They just have to accurately describe that. The false certification is related to materially false statements in the _reporting_. How they handle privacy data is still up to them (albeit potentially subject to future sanction if problematic), but this definitely does _not_ state that Zuck will be subject to criminal liability for future privacy problems.
- soulofmischief 7y agoCan anyone with a firmer understanding of the issue tell me if this is an appropriate penalty or not? Should we expect to see some of these prohibitions generalized to more companies? * Facebook is prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising * Facebook must encrypt user passwords and regularly scan to detect whether any passwords are stored in plaintext * Facebook is prohibited from asking for email passwords to other services when consumers sign up for its services
- SilasX 7y ago>Facebook is prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature (e.g., two-factor authentication) for advertising Yeah, I'm honestly surprised that one wasn't already illegal.
- ad-hominem 7y agoWhy would it be illegal? If you voluntarily give your phone number to a company, it can do whatever it wants with it. If you don't want them to have it, don't give it to them.
- jddj 7y agoAn appropriate excerpt from Matt Levine's column (the gist is that relying on the FTC, rather than Congress, is backwards): "Americans are biased toward thinking of bad things as being already illegal, always illegal, illegal by definition and by nature and in themselves. If the thing that Facebook did was so bad, then it must have been illegal, so there is no need for a new law against it. At most we need a settlement with Facebook clarifying exactly which things it did were illegal and specifying that it won’t do them again." Before Mark Zuckerberg (and possibly now Google), we didn't really have anyone abusing personal data to such an extent that what they are doing is clearly, to the average person, wrong. Dumping toxic waste into waterways/letting it reach the groundwater is probably a similar example. Every now and again an individual, company or industry comes along who is callous enough to make money off the things that surely must be illegal before and until they actually are.
- 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- superkuh 7y agoAnd now that those regulations are in place generally Facebook is locked in at the top. And all it took was a $5 billion dollar single payment. The three gears locked together unable to turn iconography they use in the article represents this well.
- naner 7y agoI had a similar question: can't these regulations be generalized? Or are we going to have these same problems in 10 years with a company other than Facebook?
- jawns 7y agoA 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 recognition technology, and obtain affirmative express user consent prior to any use that materially exceeds its prior disclosures to users; * Facebook is prohibited from asking for email passwords to other services when consumers sign up for its services. This might, at first blush, seem like a win for users, but consider it from a different perspective. When a settlement involves promising not to do a bunch of really, really bad stuff, that typically means the settlement doesn't have much bite. It's comparatively easy for a company to agree not to do egregiously bad things, and comparatively harder for it to agree not to do things that are still problematic, but less egregious. These things that Facebook has agreed to not do are way outside the boundaries of ethical privacy practices -- but there's still a ton of gray area that remains unaddressed. So from Facebook's perspective, this is probably a big win. The settlement allows the company to give the appearance of taking concrete steps to respect users' privacy. But what it might actually mean is that there were many other less egregious privacy violations that it was able to slip past the FTC's judgment.
- cooljacob204 7y ago>Facebook is prohibited from using telephone numbers obtained to enable a security feature This is exactly what made me quit Facebook a while back. Started to spam me with notifications when I only wanted to add a backup number.
- flattone 7y agopushier than a drug dealer. oh wait theyre dealing ankind of drugs too . .
- mtgx 7y agoIt 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 found nothing wrong with Facebook so far in 8 years? (even as the privacy scandals and Facebook's apologizing perpetuated in the media). These types of settlements are a joke. There's zero doubt in my mind Facebook already has a plan for how to work around these restrictions and do 90% of what it's already been doing anyway. As a side-note, does anyone still believe Facebook was genuine about getting Facebook female users' naked pictures "to protect them from revenge porn" genuine? They've already lied about collecting the phone numbers and facial recognition as being used for security. And those were obvious lies to me from day one, too. Pretty much every new feature Facebook launches that seems good for users has an undertone of "...and this is how we'll track you now."
- bogwog 7y agoThat fine is a joke. They make like 5x that amount every month.
- tadzik_ 7y agoDo you know something that FTC does not? From the article itself: > Facebook monetizes user information through targeted advertising, which generated most of the company’s $55.8 billion in revenues in 2018
- wil421 7y agoGDPR can fine 4% of total global revenue. In 2018 facebooks revenue was $55 billion. $5 billion is 9% of their revenue last year, it’s probably less this year. It is almost a quarter of their 2018 net income.
- alluro2 7y agoIt was definitely quicker to type in "fb revenue" into Google than type the sentence above...
- ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y agoIt's 1/4 of their annual net income. It's far from a joke, but it is true that it isn't ruinous.
- peteretep 7y agoDepending on their profit margin, although I suspect it's bigger than 25%
- snvzz 7y agoIt's basically nothing, compared to what they gain from not giving a damn about privacy. Which they'll continue to do.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoIs there a specific amount you think they gain from not giving a damn about privacy? $5B is a lot of money! I worry that if you think it's "basically nothing", you would've thought that no matter how much it was.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoI get that fines don’t always offset the benefit gained from shady practice, but frankly I don’t think Facebook got $5B from this. That’s ~25% of last year’s net income. That’s a punch in the jaw.
- throwaway2048 7y agoConsidering their stock rose significantly after this fine was announced, I don't think the people making money from Facebook agree with you.
- eitland 7y agoGiven my relationship with Facebook I want to agree and say the fines are way to small, but for what I know it could also be that they hurt badly and the reasons the stock rose was just because the stock marked had priced in an even bigger fine. Edit: yep, lots of them.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- caymanjim 7y agoInvestors have known for a long time that a fine was coming. This was already priced-in. Facebook has been planning on this and reporting it in SEC filings, which they are required by law to do. Now the matter is closed, and for the amount that they already warned investors it would cost. There should not have been any downward movement in the price, and there wasn't. Now the matter is put to rest, and the market likes that. If anything, the price should have gone up. Stability and predictability are good.
- FireBeyond 7y ago> That’s ~25% of last year’s net income net profit. And accounted for over the last few quarters already.
- b_tterc_p 7y agoNet Income == Net Profit
- samfriedman 7y agoAnd here is the DOJ complaint: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/182_3109_facebook_complaint_filed_7-24-19.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/182_3109_fa...
- swebs 7y ago>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 conspicuous notice of its use of facial recognition technology, and obtain affirmative express user consent prior to any use that materially exceeds its prior disclosures to users; >Facebook must establish, implement, and maintain a comprehensive data security program; >Facebook must encrypt user passwords and regularly scan to detect whether any passwords are stored in plaintext; and >Facebook is prohibited from asking for email passwords to other services when consumers sign up for its services. This is great! What do we need to do to get this to apply to other data harvesting companies like Google and Microsoft?
- fyfy18 7y agoMost of this is already restricted under GDPR, or at least is not advisable given the potential fines that couple be imposed for a leak. Other parts of the GDPR which should help are blatantly ignored (e.g. privacy popups that are checked by default), so if the US were to implement similar legislation it would be a big win for privacy.
- dymk 7y agoFacebook is also already subject to GDPR
- mda 7y agoWhich of the items in this list currently applies to Google or Microsoft?
- mirimir 7y ago>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; That applies to Google and Apple, no? To apps in their stores.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- watwatinthewat 7y agoI don't think I agree with Facebook getting a bigger fine than Equifax. I put my own information on FB. Equifax compiled information on me without my explicit consent. Both sets of data got into hands they shouldn't. I realize that misses FB willfully doing what they did and Equifax not intending to be hacked, but for me my consent is equal or more important than what the holders of the data did after they had it. Let's say I send a saucy picture to a friend and s/he shoots it all around to show off his/her banging bodied boyfriend (that being the "profit" factor). Now let's say a stranger finds my lost phone, gets the picture off the SD card with intent to use it for some personal gain, and through some series of events that gets leaked. Who did worse, the friend sharing the data I gave to them, or the stranger who got it without permission? Missing from this is Equifax had a lot more sensitive information than I put on FB.
- dhbanes 7y agoFacebook generates a shadow profile on you without your consent.
- pavel_lishin 7y ago> Who did worse, the friend sharing the data I gave to them, or the stranger who got it without permission? I honestly don't know which answer here is supposed to be the obviously correct one.
- leapis 7y agoI think the idea is supposed to be that you have some agency when you share your data with a friend. You can choose whether you want to entrust your data to this friend or not, and the onus is on you to properly vet them for transparency and trustworthiness. Conversely, if a stranger leaks your data, that isn't on you at all (beyond you allowing the stranger access to your data, but that's stretching the metaphor a bit). I don't find this argument particularly compelling though, because the typical Facebook user definitely didn't know what they were getting into when they signed up years ago. I find it hard to fault people for improperly vetting entities that are beyond their area of expertise, and I don't think this mistake on the user's part makes Facebook's practices any less egregious.
- Santosh83 7y ago“This settlement’s historic penalty and compliance terms will benefit American consumers, and the Department expects Facebook to treat its privacy obligations with the utmost seriousness.” So does this in theory apply just to the data of FB users who are American citizens (although I guess practically it may not be feasible for FB to treat non-American user data differently)?
- InTheArena 7y ago"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and designated compliance officers must independently submit to the FTC quarterly certifications that the company is in compliance with the privacy program mandated by the order, as well as an annual certification that the company is in overall compliance with the order. Any false certification will subject them to individual civil and criminal penalties." This is actually the big thing here. Any disclosure or breaking of the data makes Mark Zuckerberg personally liable. We'll see if that gets Facebook's attention at all.
- Waterluvian 7y agoWhat is the practical process in which $5B is handed over? Is it done over a timespan? Does it get tied up in courts for years and years?
- gehsty 7y agoThe gear arrangement in the diagram showing how it will all work cannot turn (triple gear engagement)! Probably an unintentional but more accurate representations than what they had in mind.
- goodmachine 7y agoPeople here missing the big win for Facebook, which is retrospective: The FTC settlement indemnifies Facebook for "any and all claims prior to June 12, 2019" https://twitter.com/ashk4n/status/1154027557055975424 https://twitter.com/ashk4n/status/1154027557055975424
- rikroots 7y agoIs this true only in the US? Or can Facebook argue that the settlement with the FTC effectively indemnifies them across other jurisdictions? I remember there being something about courts in different countries respecting each other's rulings, but not sure how such an argument would play in (for example) the EU.
- slim 7y agoit's true only in us
- mirimir 7y agoBut then GDPR is effective only in the EU. At some point, wouldn't it be simpler to have the same policies globally? Or is that too simpleminded?
- jacquesm 7y agoPity to see this downvoted. That's called 'harmonization'. It is one of the bits that makes copyright law such a powerful law because the Berne convention synchronized a whole pile of stuff in a very large chunk of the world. Similar activity tends to occur in neighboring countries with respect to tax law to avoid capital flight.
- mirimir 7y agoI was thinking more of the arguably disproportionate impact that California auto-emission limits have had in the overall US market. As I understand it, it would cost too much to produce multiple state-specific versions. So the high-population state with the lowest limits effectively sets the US standard. But maybe that doesn't apply as much to online stuff. Because marginal cost isn't so sensitive to volume.
- snvzz 7y ago>$5B So, basically free.
- annadane 7y agoI 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
- nappy-doo 7y agoDid 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.
- ebg13 7y ago> 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.
- Diederich 7y agoIf you have a few minutes, I wonder if you can expand on that? Does "it was a mistake" stem primarily from '"move fast," without really thinking through implications'? Thanks!
- rainyMammoth 7y agoWorking somewhere and seeing a place from the inside has nothing to do with the fact that the company is toxic or not. I think we all agree that Facebook takes really good care of their employees and keep them happy, whatever it takes. That doesn't prevent the company to produce a product that is toxic to humanity. It is of course difficult to see that when you are extremely well paid and your salary depends on you producing that product.
- tinus_hn 7y agohttps://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/mark-zuckerberg-called-early-facebook-users-dumb-f-s-for-sharing-data-giving-up-privacy-1195396-2018-03-22 https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/mark-zuckerb... Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They "trust me" Zuck: Dumb f*s.
- Pigo 7y agoI'd be curious to see where this fine goes. From what I seen most FTC fines go to "the U.S. Treasury for general use". Not even Congress gets a chance to mismanage it. Then again, if they take it out of circulation, maybe it is a net gain for everyone?
- Hamuko 7y agoIs the "poor, greedy EU is trying to make money by taxing American tech giants via fines for nothing" narrative still alive and well?
- geodel 7y agoI think it is and it should be fine. Unless of course there is memo that EU should be able to fine whenever they deem fit but people must not allowed to criticize EU behavior when they find it egregious.
- zxcvbn4038 7y agoDoes 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 idea that this is less about consumers and more about Zuck blowing off Congress?
- djsumdog 7y agoWhat 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.
- blackoil 7y agoIt should be based on no. of user impacted and avg. impact to each user. Revenue/Margin are should not be primary driver. We don't convict murderer/thief depending on their net worth (if any it is tilted on wrong side).
- Signez 7y agoSome jurisdictions do (in Europe, for example).
- ouid 7y agoThere is a greater impact to society than measurable direct impact to users. Facebook should be liable for their total net externalities, divided by the probability of being caught for such actions. That is the economic premise of the FTC. This should include fines and remedies for anti-trust violations as well, and since this is an opportunity cost, it does scale with the size of the company. In fact you should probably subtract the direct costs to users, as there is already a mechanism in place for collecting damages, and any government intervention on this axis should go to something reminiscent of a victim's fund.
- 7y ago
- iooi 7y agoTake a look at NASDAQ: FB. <0.5% change. This means nothing.
- iooi 7y agoNow up almost 4% after-hours on earnings :)
- rad_gruchalski 7y agoSomeone 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-settlement-data-cambridge-analytica-penalty-privacy-punishment-5-billion 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 the core problems that led to these violations." $5 billion of cost with shareholders' money. Not bad.
- turk73 7y agoIt's a drop in the bucket. And that's the problem. Make these penalties equal 50% of annual revenue. That will get their attention. Make a penalty where everyone in the company's wages are garnished.
- kijin 7y agoIf 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.
- WhompingWindows 7y agoIt'll probably exist forever, but the more we expose FB's rampant wrong-doing, the less people will use it. The young have already moved away from it, once older generations die off, FB will then start dying off as well...if only they weren't allowed to buy all their competitors.
- almost_usual 7y agoDid you read the entire FTC write up? Facebook essentially doesn't have control over how they handle privacy data anymore. I'd argue the fine is the least damaging aspect. "As part of Facebook’s order-mandated privacy program, which covers WhatsApp and Instagram, Facebook must conduct a privacy review of every new or modified product, service, or practice before it is implemented, and document its decisions about user privacy. The designated compliance officers must generate a quarterly privacy review report, which they must share with the CEO and the independent assessor, as well as with the FTC upon request by the agency."
- joelx 7y agohttps://joelx.com/facebook-fined-while-murderers-go-free/15106/ https://joelx.com/facebook-fined-while-murderers-go-free/151...
- throwaway2048 7y agoSo I should be free to break any law less serious than murder, I'm sure a judge will see the wisdom of your argument when I appear before them. Gonna make so much money robbing these banks.
- ausjke 7y agoat market cap close to 600B this is less than 1% of its "wealth"
- nrclark 7y agoWhere does this $5B go, exactly? Into the general fund? If it goes into the FTC's budget, then something is very wrong. This money came from our citizenry, and should be restored to us through something meaningful.
- jddj 7y agoTo the US treasury, for general use. Most (all?) federal fines are this way, although if they specified that some of the total were to be used for direct compensation to victims, then that could be included in the total as reported by the media but obviously wouldn't be spendable by Congress. I can't point to a case where that's ever happened, though, so the answer in practice is "the US treasury".
- abecedarius 7y agoFormer Chief Security Officer of Facebook on how the FTC judgment is fantastic for Facebook and terrible for users (as @zooko summarized it): https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1154025820890865664 https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1154025820890865664
- rainyMammoth 7y agoI cannot stand Alex Stamos takes on all of this. He WAS the CISO for Facebook during all the biggest scandals. He WAS the person responsible for overseeing all of this. He decided conveniently to exit Facebook once the bad press came over and now he is trying to play the "expert card" on everything related to security and democracy. It's really a shame that we don't keep him more accountable.
- singron 7y agoI decided to change the email address I have registered with facebook after reading this ruling and seeing the long list of advertisers who uploaded customer lists with my email address. However, facebook blocks me from updating my email address and instead displays messages like "Sorry, this feature isn't available right now"[0]. Has this happened to anyone else? Is there anything I can do besides creating a new account with the right email address? 0: https://i.imgur.com/4WEBAXD.png https://i.imgur.com/4WEBAXD.png
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mirimir 7y agoOK, I have a probably dumb question. In TFA, I see: > Following a yearlong investigation by the FTC, the Department of Justice will file a complaint[0] on behalf of the Commission alleging that Facebook repeatedly used deceptive disclosures and settings to undermine users’ privacy preferences in violation of its 2012 FTC order. These tactics allowed the company to share users’ personal information with third-party apps that were downloaded by the user’s Facebook “friends.” The FTC alleges that many users were unaware that Facebook was sharing such information, and therefore did not take the steps needed to opt-out of sharing. So does this settlement correspond to that complaint? I'm guessing that it must. But then, that means that the FTC negotiated the settlement with Facebook based on an unfiled complaint. That rather implies that Facebook had some influence over the complaint. I guess that's not very different from plea bargaining in criminal cases, however. 0) https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/182_3109_facebook_complaint_filed_7-24-19.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/182_3109_fa...
- mirimir 7y agoI'm curious why this is getting flagged. I suppose that it's so contentious that it's generating pointless argument. But it is a remarkable action by the FTC. Especially given concerns after Obama-era privacy initiatives got reversed.
- jshowa3 7y agoThis isn't going to do anything. It's similar to an SEC fine. All it's going to be is a legal write off for the company. What really needs to happen is companies need to be broken up or violating privacy without consent needs a criminal penalty. Strict. But I don't see how monetary fines damage companies this large anymore...
- moocowtruck 7y agowhere should they send the check to so i can get my payout?
- Havoc 7y agoSurprised how little coverage this is getting here. Maybe the FTC should have added another zero to raise some pulses among the tech crew
- robomartin 7y agoThe most important privacy enhancement they could make is nowhere to be found in this settlement: Provide easy means for users to permanently delete all information, posts, comments and messages, as well as a setting to automatically expire and delete all if the above as desired. This should include backups.
- msla 7y agoThis is useless because of external backups, and not desirable because of things like posts becoming evidence of criminality.
- robomartin 7y agoNot useless at all. If websites are required, by law, to protect your information, seek permission to share it and also institute retention policies based on your preferences, this would be a huge improvement in privacy. If by external backups you mean my cousin copying one of my photos and saving it or something like that, sure, I take your point. However, I think you understand exactly what I mean. There's a massive difference between that and Facebook having an entire record of my life, complete with tags, pictures and classifications, all of which I have exactly zero control over. And, no, social media does not exist to facilitate law enforcement investigations. If that is their primary purpose they need to disclose it. It so happens that it can be used that way, but we should not pass legislation based on the possibility of law enforcement using these databases to effectively spy and reach for people's private information. Cautionary tales abound, incuding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
- thesausageking 7y agoThe head of the FTC voted against it and gave his reasoning here: https://twitter.com/chopraftc/status/1154010756079390720 https://twitter.com/chopraftc/status/1154010756079390720 One that stood out for me is complete immunity for for the execs for "known" and "unknown" violations: "Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, and other executives get blanket immunity for their role in the violations. This is wrong and sets a terrible precedent. The law doesn’t give them a special exemption. The settlement fine print gives Facebook broad immunity for “known” and “unknown” violations. What’s covered by these immunity deals? Facebook knows, but the public is kept in the dark."
- jiveturkey 7y agothis needs to be at the top
- tantalor 7y agoNo different than the broad immunity granted to legislators and top executives in government who authorize and oversee the worst abuses of government.
- g00s3_caLL_x2 7y agoLaw enforcement leverages social media in a major way. They have customized software that interfaces with all the major environments and ties them all together. It makes their jobs (LEO) much easier. They are not going to shit where they eat.
- bilbo0s 7y agoYep. That's exactly the violations I figured they were getting immunity from. I mean, let's be real, they're not going to undo any of that, and they likely want to make sure that any new social nets set up the same facilities for them.
- tareqak 7y agoRohit Chopra is not the head of the FTC: he's one of the five FTC commissioners [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission#Current_membership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission#Curre...
- rainyMammoth 7y agoIt's sad that their stocks are still up after the announcement. It is also sad that Facebook is still seen as a somewhat prestigious employer. Some of my friends still brag about working there as if it was the pinnacle of their tech career.
- jacquesm 7y agoAny anti-GDPR advocates want to chime in on all those huge fines that the EU was going to levy on every American company? Props to the FTC for the size of the fine and the detailed explanation, not so good that the perps get to walk - again.
- mikestaub 7y agoI think an important detail is that as part of the settlement Facebook is exonerated from all past 'mistakes'. This is actually really good for Facebook and was the wrong move by the FTC. This will encourage future privacy abuses as now they know they can 'get away' with it.