6 ms·

Zoom's income in 2021 was 2.6 billion dollars. $86m/$2.6 billion = 0.033. If I earn $100k per year, that's like a fine of $3300.

threatofrain 5y ago
That's a substantial fee for a human making $100k per year (plus taxes), but I don't think we should be comparing what's a reasonable fine for a person vs a business.
- parineum 5y ago
  Why?
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    Taking 3.3% of someone's income is substantial, whereas for a business, this is a cha-ching deal for potentially getting a business edge by not focusing on privacy rules when momentum mattered. Most businesses are structured such that failing isn't disastrous (creditors cannot chase after the owners), whereas a human experiencing financial failure is an extreme life setback.
    - grp000 5y ago
      Not to mention the compounding effects of getting that business advantage earlier than others in the same space. If you can lie and say you have e2e encryption to scoop up market share before anyone else, even if the bare-faced lie gets revealed like it did here, not all of the clients who signed up are going to leave you, and you already have market inertia as a big player that will help you keep growing.
    - parineum 5y ago
      Those are all advantages an individual can achieve by breaking the rules as well.
      - effingwewt 5y ago
        No when people break rules it's called breaking the law and we get life-altering fines and jail time. Corporations lose one day of revenue and continue with business as usual.
- quadrifoliate 5y ago
  I understand that a person and a business are different, but it's worth contrasting if numbers are roughly in the same ballpark, right? A lot of businesses do start out as just one person. In a year with like 300% revenue growth, I feel like Zoom can probably just treat this fine as cost of doing business. I mean, I pay a lot more than $3k in taxes per year!
- ttty2 5y ago
  I think we need ask the question: is this fee enough to prevent bad behavior? I think not, then just be higher.
yarky 5y ago
3.3% of gross revenue isn't as tiny as you make it sound.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  Yeah I mean, if I got a $3,300 speeding ticket I would be furious for about a month.
  - quadrifoliate 5y ago
    Are you sure? What if you were making only $25k/year the previous year, and the speeding ticket enabled you to get the job that's making $100k/year?
    - thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
      Yeah usually a $3,300.00 ticket comes with some form of demerits so even if you pay the fine you lose your license if you do it to much. Can't think of a job where you'd benefit by speeding but losing your license would be fine.
  - hellbannedguy 5y ago
    We need to tie all governmental fee/fines (muni, civil, criminal, even patent/trademark) to 1040 income level. A wealthy man get's a $625 red light violation, and it's dinner conversation. A poor man get the same punishment, and it could be the last straw.
  - paxys 5y ago
    And if you got a $3,300 fine for murdering someone you'd be pretty happy about it.
modriano 5y ago
A $3300 fine would get me to change my behavior. I don't think Zoom is profiting from breeching privacy; I think they profit from providing video-meeting software. I think penalizing undesirable behavior that doesn't produce profit will motivate Zoom to take that undesirable behavior very seriously.
- bsder 5y ago
  Is that $3,300 the reason why I have a $100K job instead of a $50K job? If so, I wouldn't even flinch at paying that. Many moons ago, lawyers used to crash the carpool lanes in Washington, DC for about that price given the time they would save and the amount they could bill. The firms just started paying the fines. It wasn't until the penalty started having points and could cost you your drivers license that the behavior stopped.
- sleepyhead 5y ago
  "I don't think Zoom is profiting from breeching privacy" They are. "Move fast and break things"-strategy is a decision for higher growth at the cost of privacy, security and stability for customers.
fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
The discourse on this is interesting to me. I first heard it in reference to truly small fines, like less than a million dollars for a big company. Then over time it gets repeated for literally any fine, no matter how large. Now we are talking about a month’s worth of profits (Zoom’s profit last quarter was $227M), which is really quite a lot. It’s a similar magnitude event to a global company losing all its UK customers. Hundreds of people would be laid off for a screwup this big, whole business units shut down.
- justapassenger 5y ago
  It’s one off write off during earnings call. It’s really not a big deal at all, it can even cause stock price to pop, as it shows that company is big enough, that lying is cheap and gives you amazing ROI. E2EE was a big feature that helped to fuel the growth. One month of profits, once you’ve experienced extreme growth and tons of money infusion, is a great deal.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- quadrifoliate 5y ago
  > Then over time it gets repeated for literally any fine, no matter how large. I mean, I think it's worthwhile to compare and see how you'd think about this, right? $3k fine seems high in the abstract to me. Then again, if it's viewed as a kind of tax for going from $25k/year in annual income to $100k/year – eh, doesn't sound like much. What do you think? > Hundreds of people would be laid off for a screwup this big, whole business units shut down. I am actually curious to see if that's the case – are there any reports of such shutdowns/layoffs?
- eurasiantiger 5y ago
  It does not matter for a company that is funded by the CCP.
crazygringo 5y ago
You're comparing income to salary, which doesn't make sense, since most of income goes back out on expenses. A more logical comparison is profits (net income) to salary, which is the money they keep (like salary). Zoom had net income of $672M in FY2021. Which means if you earned $100k, that'd be a fine of $12,800. That's a pretty big fine if you ask me. That's not a slap on the wrist -- that's going to be behavior-changing for most people.
- quadrifoliate 5y ago
  > You're comparing income to salary, which doesn't make sense, since most of income goes back out on expenses. Where do you think my salary goes? Things are pretty expensive.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Then do the same math. $100k income, maybe $20k savings after all expenses (if you’re lucky), a $3,300 fine is huge then.
t-writescode 5y ago
One of the best things about the GDPR isn't that the maximum fine is _only_ 4% of the yearly revenue, it's that it's AS MUCH AS 4% of the yearly revenue. So when the court is considering fines, they don't go and look at a 3 million dollar fine and go "that's a good fine", they look at the revenue instead and go "the fine can be as much as 400M"

threatofrain 5y ago

That's a substantial fee for a human making $100k per year (plus taxes), but I don't think we should be comparing what's a reasonable fine for a person vs a business.

parineum 5y ago
Why?
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Taking 3.3% of someone's income is substantial, whereas for a business, this is a cha-ching deal for potentially getting a business edge by not focusing on privacy rules when momentum mattered. Most businesses are structured such that failing isn't disastrous (creditors cannot chase after the owners), whereas a human experiencing financial failure is an extreme life setback.
  - grp000 5y ago
    Not to mention the compounding effects of getting that business advantage earlier than others in the same space. If you can lie and say you have e2e encryption to scoop up market share before anyone else, even if the bare-faced lie gets revealed like it did here, not all of the clients who signed up are going to leave you, and you already have market inertia as a big player that will help you keep growing.
  - parineum 5y ago
    Those are all advantages an individual can achieve by breaking the rules as well.
    - effingwewt 5y ago
      No when people break rules it's called breaking the law and we get life-altering fines and jail time. Corporations lose one day of revenue and continue with business as usual.
quadrifoliate 5y ago
I understand that a person and a business are different, but it's worth contrasting if numbers are roughly in the same ballpark, right? A lot of businesses do start out as just one person. In a year with like 300% revenue growth, I feel like Zoom can probably just treat this fine as cost of doing business. I mean, I pay a lot more than $3k in taxes per year!
ttty2 5y ago
I think we need ask the question: is this fee enough to prevent bad behavior? I think not, then just be higher.

yarky 5y ago

3.3% of gross revenue isn't as tiny as you make it sound.

bpodgursky 5y ago
Yeah I mean, if I got a $3,300 speeding ticket I would be furious for about a month.
- quadrifoliate 5y ago
  Are you sure? What if you were making only $25k/year the previous year, and the speeding ticket enabled you to get the job that's making $100k/year?
  - thedmstdmstdmst 5y ago
    Yeah usually a $3,300.00 ticket comes with some form of demerits so even if you pay the fine you lose your license if you do it to much. Can't think of a job where you'd benefit by speeding but losing your license would be fine.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  We need to tie all governmental fee/fines (muni, civil, criminal, even patent/trademark) to 1040 income level. A wealthy man get's a $625 red light violation, and it's dinner conversation. A poor man get the same punishment, and it could be the last straw.
- paxys 5y ago
  And if you got a $3,300 fine for murdering someone you'd be pretty happy about it.

modriano 5y ago

A $3300 fine would get me to change my behavior. I don't think Zoom is profiting from breeching privacy; I think they profit from providing video-meeting software. I think penalizing undesirable behavior that doesn't produce profit will motivate Zoom to take that undesirable behavior very seriously.

bsder 5y ago
Is that $3,300 the reason why I have a $100K job instead of a $50K job? If so, I wouldn't even flinch at paying that. Many moons ago, lawyers used to crash the carpool lanes in Washington, DC for about that price given the time they would save and the amount they could bill. The firms just started paying the fines. It wasn't until the penalty started having points and could cost you your drivers license that the behavior stopped.
sleepyhead 5y ago
"I don't think Zoom is profiting from breeching privacy" They are. "Move fast and break things"-strategy is a decision for higher growth at the cost of privacy, security and stability for customers.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago

The discourse on this is interesting to me. I first heard it in reference to truly small fines, like less than a million dollars for a big company. Then over time it gets repeated for literally any fine, no matter how large. Now we are talking about a month’s worth of profits (Zoom’s profit last quarter was $227M), which is really quite a lot. It’s a similar magnitude event to a global company losing all its UK customers. Hundreds of people would be laid off for a screwup this big, whole business units shut down.

justapassenger 5y ago
It’s one off write off during earnings call. It’s really not a big deal at all, it can even cause stock price to pop, as it shows that company is big enough, that lying is cheap and gives you amazing ROI. E2EE was a big feature that helped to fuel the growth. One month of profits, once you’ve experienced extreme growth and tons of money infusion, is a great deal.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quadrifoliate 5y ago
> Then over time it gets repeated for literally any fine, no matter how large. I mean, I think it's worthwhile to compare and see how you'd think about this, right? $3k fine seems high in the abstract to me. Then again, if it's viewed as a kind of tax for going from $25k/year in annual income to $100k/year – eh, doesn't sound like much. What do you think? > Hundreds of people would be laid off for a screwup this big, whole business units shut down. I am actually curious to see if that's the case – are there any reports of such shutdowns/layoffs?
eurasiantiger 5y ago
It does not matter for a company that is funded by the CCP.

crazygringo 5y ago

You're comparing income to salary, which doesn't make sense, since most of income goes back out on expenses. A more logical comparison is profits (net income) to salary, which is the money they keep (like salary). Zoom had net income of $672M in FY2021. Which means if you earned $100k, that'd be a fine of $12,800. That's a pretty big fine if you ask me. That's not a slap on the wrist -- that's going to be behavior-changing for most people.

quadrifoliate 5y ago
> You're comparing income to salary, which doesn't make sense, since most of income goes back out on expenses. Where do you think my salary goes? Things are pretty expensive.
- refurb 5y ago
  Then do the same math. $100k income, maybe $20k savings after all expenses (if you’re lucky), a $3,300 fine is huge then.

t-writescode 5y ago

One of the best things about the GDPR isn't that the maximum fine is _only_ 4% of the yearly revenue, it's that it's AS MUCH AS 4% of the yearly revenue. So when the court is considering fines, they don't go and look at a 3 million dollar fine and go "that's a good fine", they look at the revenue instead and go "the fine can be as much as 400M"