6 ms·
Amazon Fined $35M in France over 'Overly Intrusive' Surveillance
- sleepybrett 3y ago$35M seems like a parking ticket. Has anyone done any studies on fining based on % of income/wealth? Like a traffic violation might be fined at 0.001% of income or something.
- Detrytus 3y agoFor traffic violations I think Finland has already implemented such system.
- dmoy 3y agoAlso, iirc: Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria, France, and Switzerland. Not all the same for all types of infractions, but all have some types of scaled-to-income/whatever fines for individuals.
- rft 3y agoHere in Germany we only have flat fines for standard traffic infractions. If you make it all the way into crime territory we have the concept of Tagessätze (lit. day fines). The court sentences you to X amount of Tagessätze. The actual fine per day is determined based on your income, usually equal to the amount you make after taxes per day. The judge is free to either estimate your income or can require you to declare it.
- bill38 3y agoThere is something similar in France : "jours amende". The key point is that if you don't pay the fine, you go to prison the number of days indicated in the "jours amende". It's for criminal court, not for traffic infractions.
- 331c8c71 3y agoFor at least one country on the list the scaling is only for egregious violations.
- sonicanatidae 3y agoRegardless of how this was calculated, it is a parking ticket to Amazon.
- cccbbbaaa 3y agoIt's a GDPR fine above 20M€, so it's already based on their income.
- BenoitP 3y agoIndeed, but courts in France have the habit of always firing warning shots. Non-compliance can trigger another court decision with forceful consequences. So far GDPR has only yielded symbolic amounts. But the legislative cap is at profit-destroying levels.
- alimbada 3y agoIt is based on income; just not Amazon's global income. It's based on their income in France.
- BenoitP 3y agoThe total revenues of Amazon's activities in France were over €9 bn in 2022. So we're at about 0.3%. A warning shot IMHO
- alimbada 3y agoYeah, it seems a little murky which years' income is the basis for the fine. I was reading another article[1] which compares their fine to their 2021 revenue but doesn't explicitly say whether the 2021 revenue is the basis for the fine. [1] https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/01/23/amazon-fined-for-excessively-intrusive-surveillance-of-its-workers-in-france https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/01/23/amazon-fined-fo...
- onetwotest 3y agoRevenue is a weird number to talk about in an operation with margins as thin as Amazon's.
- SushiHippie 3y agoAccording to the official document that CNIL provided [1] (translated with google translate): > The company AFL, a simplified joint stock company registered in the trade and companies register on January 3, 2000, is located at 67 boulevard du général Leclerc in Clichy (92110). Its turnover amounted to 1.135 billion euros in 2021, for a net profit of 58.9 million euros. AFL is Amazon France Logistics. Which seems to be the entity that got fined. So the fine is more than 50% of their (the logistics part of Amazon in France) net profit. [1] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/cnil/id/CNILTEXT000048989272 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/cnil/id/CNILTEXT000048989272
- noutella 3y agoAmazon France entity doesn’t make make much money, the regulator that issued the fine (la CNIL) says its roughly 3-4% of Amazon’s revenue here.
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoHow does Amazon France entity declare their revenue, losses and profits, when all purchases in Amazon in Europe seem to be invoiced by Amazon EU S.à r.l. Luxembourg (an EU tax heaven) ?
- SushiHippie 3y agoSeems like a subsidiary of Amazon was fined which makes 1.135 billion and a net profit of 58.9 million euros. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39107156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39107156
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- c048 3y agoIt probably takes Amazon of 2023 about an hour (after taxes) to pay this off.
- johndhi 3y agoDamn, this is a really interesting statement from AMZN: "The use of warehouse management systems is standard industry practice: they are necessary to ensure safe, quality and efficient operations and to ensure inventory tracking and package processing on time and in accordance with to customer expectations.”" They're saying: human beings (warehouse workers) are not capable of providing adequate work without oversight by machines, AI, and other human beings. They may well be right.
- gizmo385 3y ago> They may well be right. Huh? What does this even mean? Are you honestly claiming that humans can't work without something standing over their shoulder the entire time?
- twosdai 3y agoI read this as it being not that people are incapable. But at scale it's hard to track accidents, so tech needs to be used otherwise it's impossible. To do so at scale inside of a warehouse like Amazon's
- rakoo 3y agoThis tech is absolutely not about accidents, it's about making sure workers spend every single second of their time producing revenue and not talking to each other, going to the toilet, having a break, discussing their shitty working conditions, that kind of stuff.
- onetwotest 3y agoYou must not have worked around warehouse workers. They can, but they won't consistently do it to a speed and quality acceptable to Amazon without some oversight. Maybe French workers are unicorns, but this definitely provides the US customer with a lower price.
- iamacyborg 3y ago
- karaterobot 3y ago> Amazon says the ruling is 'factually incorrect'; it’s considering appealing the decision. If it were factually incorrect, it should be easy to demonstrate this in an appeal. Even if one court fails understand the obvious facts of the case, the second one will, that's what appeals are for after all. I look forward to a full and transparent account of the facts, which will no doubt demonstrate Amazon's probity in this matter. I guess the only possible way they wouldn't win on appeal, or wouldn't make the appeal, is if they're lying. Unlikely, but worth bringing up on the off chance.