4 ms·
Comparing the entire company's revenue to the fine is a bit misleading. Arguably, the more relevant comparison is to consider how much marginal revenue the viol
by _jab 3y ago
Comparing the entire company's revenue to the fine is a bit misleading. Arguably, the more relevant comparison is to consider how much marginal revenue the violating feature actually produced. Granted, probably no one besides Google knows that number, but it's surely orders of magnitude lower. If those numbers are comparable, this starts to look like a reasonable penalty.
- hankchinaski 3y agoexactly - people each time there is a fine they continue to regurgitate the usual "but what bout their revenue" - people on the orange site thinking they know better than a panel of expert regulators
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoYou mean like the panel of expert regulators that has sent noone to jail for collapsing the global economy in 2008, or for Boeing Max debacle?
- jasonfarnon 3y agoI don't know what the orange site is. But I know a panel of "expert regulators" did not decide on this fine. This was a negotiated legal settlement.
- wnoise 3y agoThis is the orange site, the one you're on right now.
- sodality2 3y agoI definitely don’t ascribe to the notion that crimes should be punished equally to their benefit to the party. Otherwise bank thieves would just give it all back when caught, and the risk to reward is minimal. It should be enough to dissuade a company from ever doing these illegal acts
- wuiheerfoj 3y agoNot defending the comparison against revenue, but we’d need to compare the value produced by the illegal tracking against the probability of getting caught and fined. Given google are unlikely to be the only one doing this, the expected value of breaking the law could still be quite high
- everforward 3y agoI don't think the marginal revenue is directly relevant. The relevant question is how big does the fine have to be to discourage illegal behavior in the future? The marginal revenue of the behavior is somewhat relevant because the fine should obviously be at or higher than that amount, but that's really a lower bound. They lost a similar case in 2012 about lying to Safari users about privacy settings and were fined $22.5M (~$31M today). They lost one in 2010 about violating the Wiretap Act for collecting packets from unencrypted wifi networks. They lost another one in 2010 for Google Buzz. Some of those were settled, but I would consider it roughly equivalent to losing if they'd rather buy their way out than have to present a case. Given that they previously lost a case (to California, again, no less) with similar underlying issues, I would consider this to be flagrant flouting of the law and it should be punished proportionally to that flagrancy. Roosevelt said to "speak softly and carry a big stick". Google didn't listen to the soft speaking, so California should hit them with the big stick hard enough to remind them that they only exist in California at the pleasure of the people of California. My proposal would be a fine equal to 100% of revenue derived from Californians for the period they were violating the law. They need a fine big enough that the C-levels start asking legal whether they can use the bathroom or not, and a promise that all future violations will be treated the same way. For pity's sake, California has a 3 strikes system for individuals. It's not like the state doesn't do disproportionate punishment. If Google were a person, they would've been in jail a decade ago and probably staring down California's 3-strike law and life in prison.
- yencabulator 3y agoThat lets them use the revenue from the other business units (that didn't get caught that year) as insurance against the loss when one business unit does get caught. The punishment has to hurt the whole company, or it's pointless.