Facebook Settlement With FTC Could Run Into the Billions (nytimes.com) 77
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: Facebook and the Federal Trade Commission are discussing a settlement over privacy violations that could amount to a record, multibillion-dollar fine, according to three people with knowledge of the talks. The company and the F.T.C.'s consumer protection and enforcement staff have been in negotiations over a financial penalty for claims that Facebook violated a 2011 privacy consent decree with the agency, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private. In 2011, Facebook promised a series of measures to protect user privacy after an investigation found it had harmed consumers with its handling of user data. The current talks have not yet reached the F.T.C.'s five commissioners for a vote and it is unclear how close the two sides are to wrapping up the nearly 11-month investigation. The commissioners met in mid-December and were updated by staff members that they had at that point found considerable evidence of violations of the 2011 consent decree. The FTC investigation into Facebook began after it was reported that the information of 87 million users had been harvested by a British political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, without their permission. The agency could seek up to $41,000 for each violation found.
Harvested? (Score:1)
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably they did, but what I am not seeing in this thread is the bunch of trolls that were badmouthing the EU when it did the same a month ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I'm one of those people bad mouthing the EU for the fines...
Looks like it just took the FTC a while longer to get on this revenue stream.
A wall (Score:4, Funny)
Turns out that it's not the Mexicans paying for the wall after all, but it's Facebook.
To quote Grumpy Cat. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Good. They made a fortune off of poisoning the well of civic conversation.
So the NY Times is next then? By that argument most of the media should be on the chopping block, too.
Re: To quote Grumpy Cat. (Score:1)
Fine by me
Re:To quote Grumpy Cat. (Score:5, Insightful)
No cable 24 hour news did that. There isn't enough interesting news to really cover a 24 hour news cycle, So they filled 80% of the time with people with editorial opinions. To keep it interesting, we will put in too crazies with diametric opposite opinions so it becomes less of a discussion on important events, but a sporting event of yelling at each other.
Some stations have a political agenda, so they pick guests to make one side seem like they have it in order, while the other size is just a raving lunatic.
For example back in 2003 for the Gulf War, Fox News pitted a Sr. Bush Administration Official, against some college kid, who organized a anti-war protest. After watching that debate, I lost all credibility towards Fox news. Because it was intentionally one sided, and just showed how Stupid those LiBeRaLs are. Because you have an Experienced debater, vs a kid with a strong opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the support for the new antisemites.
Re:To quote Grumpy Cat. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, I disagree with your dissent of the OP. The well of civic conversation has been poisoned by several actors and Facebook is one of them. I think the sad irony is that the tools of technology that allow for greater egalitarianism are also the ones that dumb down public discourse. In your Fox News example, we see the rise of cable news networks that will put any argumentative talking heads they can book on TV because they have so much time to fill (and CNN does the same thing: John Stewart's attack on the network while they had him as a guest on Crossfire was an amazing critique of the 24/7 cable news model). Facebook, however, doesn't just give a platform to morons like Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, it gives a platform to everyone. Instead of having the choice between two biased news channels (Fox & MSNBC) and one that somehow manages to constantly screw things up by trying too hard to be objective (CNN) we now social media where people can find even more specific and insular pockets of information.
The internet is a great source for information when one knows how to critically evaluate sources of information. Unfortunately, most people don't know how to do that. As much as I share your disdain for Fox News, it's still a better source of information than InfoWars.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I've got to disagree. There's more actual news than could possibly be streamed. Now if you require that the news be exciting and interesting, then you might have a point. But, e.g., the basket ball scores for the Fargo, Dakota https://scorestream.com/explor... [scorestream.com] never get reported on the news channel. Neither did the interesting thing my niece did on here birthday.
So it's what they decided to sell, it's not that there wasn't enough news.
Re: (Score:2)
So what did your niece do?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, it wasn't on the news. But if I call my brother I'll hear about it.
Re: They did it for profit (Score:2)
And how much will users of Facebook see? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh yeah, that's right. Privacy violations mean the government gets paid, not the people which were actually harmed by having their information leaked / stolen. Par for the course in the USA. I'd love to get even a percentage of those $41000 per violation.
Re: (Score:1)
I half agree.
The money should go to the people who never signed up for Facebook, but have "shadow profiles".
The people who signed up voluntarily, that's was their own choice and they are as much culpable in this clusterfuck as Facebook is. They enable it and feed it.
Re: (Score:2)
The government works for the people. This will be more money for services for the people. It isn't like we will use this money for some political stunt, that will only make the lowest common denominator of our population feel good, but offer no real practical benefit.
I haven't been up on the news recently let me check on some stuff...
Oh... Now I feel sad.
Just reading the headline (Score:2)
And given the track record of the FCC lately I can't with certainty claim that I'd know who'd be paying who.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit, who pooped into your breakfast cereals?
Talk about an overreaction to a cheap joke!
Re: (Score:2)
He allowed a Trump associate to use the same facilities that Obama did. Unforgivable.
Re: (Score:1)
He allowed a foreign 3rd-party, corporate, for-profit, non-government entity beat them to figuring out how to maximize the features of the platform.
Go FTC! (Score:5, Interesting)
The FTC has been 'woke' on this issue since 2014 when they released a pretty good report on the goings on in the data broker market:
https://www.ftc.gov/system/fil... [ftc.gov]
They requested information from 9 databrokers, and explained things most of society still doesn't grasp like:
- It's not about 'your data'. Your raw data is turned into scores, and those scores are what is being sold. This 'derived' or 'inferred' data is what we should be talking about.
- Most of the money made from profiling is not made from advertising, but from selling 'risk management' products. The hundreds of scores the databrokers developed are sold to banks, insurers, employers. Cambridge Analytica's psychological profiles were once example of this algorithmically derived data.
- Databrokers sell a lot of data to each other too. This means you get scores.. which are sold and then aggregated into new scores.. which are then aggregated into new scores. Basically, there is no end to how long you can store data on people as long as you keep regurgitating and transforming it. Think of it like data whitewashing.
Because databrokers sell the derived data, and not the original data, there is little keeping them from scooping up data from leaks and feeding that to the algorithm too.
What Cambridge Analytica was, was the first glimmer of awareness with the larger public that the narrative of 'we create profiles to show you more relevant adds' is a only half the story, and it's diverting from what's really going on.
This is only the tip of the ice berg.
Fakebook can afford it! (Score:2)
Income free FB (Score:1)
FB instead of its insurance company paying billions, should be prevented from charging for advertising for data displayed in the USA for a period of 4 years.
The monetary penalty hardly discourages bad behavior. A find of this type is a 1 quarter and 1 annual report item.
It does nothing to correct this behavior.
My state's bank examiners would shut down a single branch bank if that bank knowingly allowed a third party to get the names, addresses, birth dates, interests, hobbies, political views, etc. of most
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Please explain why anyone needs a million dollars. Or a thousand?
How the F is it any of your business what other people earn? I'd rather billionaires exist than have people like you deciding how much of my own money I should be allowed to keep.
Re: (Score:2)
The yacht created jobs that paid more taxes, as the government found out when it added, then removed, a luxury yacht tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Why someone needs a billion dollars.
Thank you.
Because that bit of rhetoric us used by nasty, power-hungry people to neuter other powerful people. And more accurately, to get "donations" to stop interfering.
Much of the world is run this way. Have you brought an "extra" $200 to the DMV recently so you didn't have to wait 2 years for a driver's license?
The rhetoric is meme cover for the reality behind the scenes. Often ultimately for fractions of a penny on the dollar of inflicted burden.
Fines = bribes (Score:3)
Good (Score:1)
Good! Who cares?! As long as the penalty money doesn't go towards any kind of steel slat fence thing, it's all good.
Like asking a Lion not to hunt (Score:2)
Personal data capture, analysis and sharing is part of Facebook DNA.
Hopefully the fines will hit where it hurts and cause a re-evaluation of culture.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Make 10 billion fined 1 billion - profit! (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Get caught and say your sorry, really, really, sorry
3. Get fined 1 billion
4. Roll around in the 9 billion left over
5. Avoid taxes since the 1 billion in fines is a deductible loss
Now that you've been caught, find new illegal or semi-legal thing to make 10 more billion and repeat
Re: (Score:2)
6. Destroy a company worth a trillion dollars, dragging down the retirement funds of millions of people.
People who vote.
I'll see your pithy virtue signalling and raise you a Reality Chip.
Private privacy violations??? (Score:2)
a 2011 privacy consent decree with the agency, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private
Is the investigation of privacy consent decree violations covered by the privacy consent decree? WTF?!? Who writes these regulations?!?
pot kettle (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
One should be more concerned if government is rifling through your data without a warrant (especially the data of political opponents) than worrying if Proctor & Gamble knows if you're more interested in Pampers or Depends.
Fines (Score:1)
Get it while the getting is good (Score:2)
The FTC is just trying to grab a handful of the cash before the European countries grab it all.
Where would the settlement monty go? (Score:1)
Probably not rightfully back to the people who were violated. Most likely into the government so they can squander it with corrupt politicians and corporations as usual, right?