5 ms·

Does 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 goi

Does 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 ago
What 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    Some jurisdictions do (in Europe, for example).
  - ouid 7y ago
    There 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.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    This makes no sense. Violating the law should not be a business expense, it needs to hurt. If Facebook was a person the remedy might be jail time, but you can’t imprison a business.
- justapassenger 7y ago
  Just because company is smaller, punishment should be lower? Impact of both leaks on average joe is much different, and size of penalties have it reversed
  - RHSeeger 7y ago
    Look at it from a different angle. The fine to the company should be big enough to make it painful to continue the behavior in question. As such, the bigger the company, the bigger the fine.
pyython 7y ago
Came here to say this! I still can't believe credit bureaus are allowed to even exist. At no time do I give them explicit permission to collect my (very) personal information, there's almost literally no way I can opt out (short of not participating in the modern financial system), their interpretation of this data has an outsized influence on my quality of life, AND they have proven themselves incompetent at protecting this data! If I'm worried about Facebook's use of my data the answer is simple: stop using Facebook.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  You did give them explicit permission by participating in the modern financial system. That's why I keep saying all the hypothetical privacy concerns with Facebook's Libra already are reality with the current financial system. Equifax also didn't get fined because of what they were doing, but because they were negligent in handling the data. Having said that, given the importance of consumer debt in the US economy, credit bureaus are indispensable. They aren't going away any time soon.
  - thfuran 7y ago
    >You did give them explicit permission by participating in the modern financial system. That sounds like implicit permission at best.
  - godelski 7y ago
    You say that as if it already happening makes it okay. Libra is getting hounded because the flaws are visible, frankly because people are suspicious of Facebook now. But the credit agencies doing similar things that we consider unethical, but operating in the background and hidden, doesn't make it right. I remember my mother telling me as a child "just because someone else does something doesn't mean you should." I'm pretty sure many mothers told many children that, but it seems many forgot. What is happening to Facebook can be good for everyone. Because if the FTC cracks down on them then it sets a precedent to crack down on the credit agencies. Clearly people will go after them if that happens. Sure, this should never have been an issue, but just because someone else is currently doing something doesn't mean that it ever was the right thing to do. Even if legal. Let's stop this BS "but they do it" and change the conversation to "they're doing it to, let's make sure they also are stopped."
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
It bother's me there are worse enemies. I'm still happy to see our lesser enemies be curtailed. Just as it bother's me that there are kids starving in africa... but I still donate to my local food bank. A worse evil doesn't mean we can't improve on other evils.
- komali2 7y ago
  Sure but it does indicate an imbalance in the justice system. Remember when a gram of crack got you the same prison time as 100g of cocaine?
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Could there be even better and widespread reform? Objectively, yes. Is this a step in the right direction? IMO, yes. To be clear, I dislike the FTC. But I believe power is corrupting in itself, so ipso facto the powerful will be corrupt or at least soon corrupted. That's why I want to see checks and balances. The guards of the guards... all lined up in a circle ideally. We aren't there, agreed. But I'll take any step toward that as a win.
geodel 7y ago
Nope. Because fines are also based on companies' capacity to pay unless idea is to shutdown company and have majority or all employees jobless on street. So fines should be big enough to cause pain but not to cripple the company from operating.
- sithlord 7y ago
  Equifax shouldn't operate, especially after all that. Atleast, with facebook, for the most part, you willingly give information. You can't do anything without data getting submitted to equifax.
quazeekotl 7y ago
The fine is 5 billion dollars because Facebook flagrantly violated the 2011 agreement with the FTC, as bad as Equifax is they haven't essentially gone "so what are you gonna do about it" to the regulators.
tzs 7y ago
One involved mishandling of user data, the other involved misuse of user data.
tschellenbach 7y ago
Yes this is insane. Facebook didn't even have a security issue. They just allowed my friends to export the fact that I listen to the Goo Goo Dolls (crazy how the media spinned this). Also, I signed up for Facebook, Equifax on the other hand keeps data on me without my permission. They had a real data breach, and they lost important data, not just Facebook likes.
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  That's downplaying it a bit. FB allowed the exporting of all sorts of data, from your relationship status, demographic and contact information, information on employers, interpersonal relationship graph to companies who used it to mine information on you without your explicit knowledge (you could refuse them access, but as soon as one of your friends allowed it, your refusal became moot). Then it built a whole bunch of tooling and ecosystem around this industry. Then it made a lot of money from it. Then it played dumb. "We didn't know", "We don't allow it, even though we built tools for no other purpose than to facilitate it", and so on. A little more nefarious than "your friends can tell someone you listen to this band".
immichaelwang 7y ago
Thinking of this in a proportional sense is the wrong comparison. It's a settlement - therefore it needs to be compared to how much damage a non-settlement was going to cause FB.
kllrnohj 7y ago
Intent matters. Equifax's breach was a breach - they were attacked. They didn't intentionally post personal information publicly. It was behind a really shitty lock, but it was behind a lock. Facebook's was not, they knowingly & willingly did the things they are being fined for doing. It bothers me that Equifax exists and is as shitty as it is. But it doesn't bother me at all that intentional maliciousness is punished harsher than incompetent negligence. The degree of the crime matters, too, of course, but this wouldn't be entirely dissimilar to the idea that homicide is a harsher sentence than involuntary manslaughter.

djsumdog 7y ago

What 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 ago
It 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 ago
  Some jurisdictions do (in Europe, for example).
- ouid 7y ago
  There 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.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  This makes no sense. Violating the law should not be a business expense, it needs to hurt. If Facebook was a person the remedy might be jail time, but you can’t imprison a business.
justapassenger 7y ago
Just because company is smaller, punishment should be lower? Impact of both leaks on average joe is much different, and size of penalties have it reversed
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  Look at it from a different angle. The fine to the company should be big enough to make it painful to continue the behavior in question. As such, the bigger the company, the bigger the fine.

pyython 7y ago

Came here to say this! I still can't believe credit bureaus are allowed to even exist. At no time do I give them explicit permission to collect my (very) personal information, there's almost literally no way I can opt out (short of not participating in the modern financial system), their interpretation of this data has an outsized influence on my quality of life, AND they have proven themselves incompetent at protecting this data! If I'm worried about Facebook's use of my data the answer is simple: stop using Facebook.

gridlockd 7y ago
You did give them explicit permission by participating in the modern financial system. That's why I keep saying all the hypothetical privacy concerns with Facebook's Libra already are reality with the current financial system. Equifax also didn't get fined because of what they were doing, but because they were negligent in handling the data. Having said that, given the importance of consumer debt in the US economy, credit bureaus are indispensable. They aren't going away any time soon.
- thfuran 7y ago
  >You did give them explicit permission by participating in the modern financial system. That sounds like implicit permission at best.
- godelski 7y ago
  You say that as if it already happening makes it okay. Libra is getting hounded because the flaws are visible, frankly because people are suspicious of Facebook now. But the credit agencies doing similar things that we consider unethical, but operating in the background and hidden, doesn't make it right. I remember my mother telling me as a child "just because someone else does something doesn't mean you should." I'm pretty sure many mothers told many children that, but it seems many forgot. What is happening to Facebook can be good for everyone. Because if the FTC cracks down on them then it sets a precedent to crack down on the credit agencies. Clearly people will go after them if that happens. Sure, this should never have been an issue, but just because someone else is currently doing something doesn't mean that it ever was the right thing to do. Even if legal. Let's stop this BS "but they do it" and change the conversation to "they're doing it to, let's make sure they also are stopped."

4ntonius8lock 7y ago

It bother's me there are worse enemies. I'm still happy to see our lesser enemies be curtailed. Just as it bother's me that there are kids starving in africa... but I still donate to my local food bank. A worse evil doesn't mean we can't improve on other evils.

komali2 7y ago
Sure but it does indicate an imbalance in the justice system. Remember when a gram of crack got you the same prison time as 100g of cocaine?
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  Could there be even better and widespread reform? Objectively, yes. Is this a step in the right direction? IMO, yes. To be clear, I dislike the FTC. But I believe power is corrupting in itself, so ipso facto the powerful will be corrupt or at least soon corrupted. That's why I want to see checks and balances. The guards of the guards... all lined up in a circle ideally. We aren't there, agreed. But I'll take any step toward that as a win.

geodel 7y ago

Nope. Because fines are also based on companies' capacity to pay unless idea is to shutdown company and have majority or all employees jobless on street. So fines should be big enough to cause pain but not to cripple the company from operating.

sithlord 7y ago
Equifax shouldn't operate, especially after all that. Atleast, with facebook, for the most part, you willingly give information. You can't do anything without data getting submitted to equifax.

quazeekotl 7y ago

The fine is 5 billion dollars because Facebook flagrantly violated the 2011 agreement with the FTC, as bad as Equifax is they haven't essentially gone "so what are you gonna do about it" to the regulators.

tzs 7y ago

One involved mishandling of user data, the other involved misuse of user data.

tschellenbach 7y ago

Yes this is insane. Facebook didn't even have a security issue. They just allowed my friends to export the fact that I listen to the Goo Goo Dolls (crazy how the media spinned this). Also, I signed up for Facebook, Equifax on the other hand keeps data on me without my permission. They had a real data breach, and they lost important data, not just Facebook likes.

FireBeyond 7y ago
That's downplaying it a bit. FB allowed the exporting of all sorts of data, from your relationship status, demographic and contact information, information on employers, interpersonal relationship graph to companies who used it to mine information on you without your explicit knowledge (you could refuse them access, but as soon as one of your friends allowed it, your refusal became moot). Then it built a whole bunch of tooling and ecosystem around this industry. Then it made a lot of money from it. Then it played dumb. "We didn't know", "We don't allow it, even though we built tools for no other purpose than to facilitate it", and so on. A little more nefarious than "your friends can tell someone you listen to this band".

immichaelwang 7y ago

Thinking of this in a proportional sense is the wrong comparison. It's a settlement - therefore it needs to be compared to how much damage a non-settlement was going to cause FB.

kllrnohj 7y ago

Intent matters. Equifax's breach was a breach - they were attacked. They didn't intentionally post personal information publicly. It was behind a really shitty lock, but it was behind a lock. Facebook's was not, they knowingly & willingly did the things they are being fined for doing. It bothers me that Equifax exists and is as shitty as it is. But it doesn't bother me at all that intentional maliciousness is punished harsher than incompetent negligence. The degree of the crime matters, too, of course, but this wouldn't be entirely dissimilar to the idea that homicide is a harsher sentence than involuntary manslaughter.