from the fine-them-$0.20-per-sale-that-will-certainly-change-things dept.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today announced that smart TV maker Vizio has agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle a case involving the TVs' data collection techniques. Vizio allegedly collected data on what people viewed on 11 million of its TVs and then shared the data with third parties without informing people about the data collection or receiving consent.
As part of the settlement with the FTC and the New Jersey Attorney General, Vizio must also delete data that it collected prior to March 1, 2016, and implement a data privacy program that is to be evaluated twice a year, according to a statement. The commission voted 3-0 in favor of the ruling, according to the statement.
Additionally, Vizio must "prominently disclose and obtain affirmative express consent for its data collection and sharing practices, and prohibits misrepresentations about the privacy, security, or confidentiality of consumer information they collect," the ruling states.
Source:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:24PM
None that's how much.
Not much justice in the justice system it seems.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:05PM
Stalk one person, go to jail or get a fine and restraining order.
Stalk 11 million households, get a slap on the wrist.
Business as usual...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Spamalope on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:33PM
The copies sold by vizio to the data aggregators isn't subject to the order to vizio though, is it? (Shouldn't those folks be called cyber stalkers?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:44PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-tv-ad-rates-morning-joe-oreilly-234647 [politico.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:31PM
I feel sorry for Vizio. Trump will fix this outrageous overreach.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @03:32PM
This is no punishment, change it to: "all revenue (nor profit) acquired directly or indirectly (NOT minus costs to run the scam) from running this scam PLUS a fine of 20% of the revenue (nor profit) of the company generated during the time that this scam was run"
When will we finally hit these fuckers where it hurts and make sure that this deterrent works as a deterrent? FFS
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday February 07 2017, @05:41PM
You forgot to include criminal charges against the individuals responsible for the policy that violated the law, and being subject to civil court penalties for those who could demonstrate a financial lose due to the violations.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @06:58PM
Why do they have to demonstrate financial losses due to the violations? Is having their privacy violated not bad enough?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @07:33PM
It surely should be!
If I trespass I can get a criminal misdemeanor fine and record, but nobody can prove financial loss.
Corporations, by definition, are more difficult to prosecute criminally, partly because the law protects them, and partly because it's much more difficult to investigate, gather evidence, and prove.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Wednesday February 08 2017, @12:14AM
I personally agree, but the current standard for a civil suit requires demonstration of financial loss via monetary or slander/libel that can be directly translated in a loss of business hence again a financial loss. I think violating your privacy ought to be at least justification for a solid kick in the nuts.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1) by GreatOutdoors on Wednesday February 08 2017, @12:14AM
Let's to the math on this. 11m people affected and the fine is 2.2m. that is $0.20 per person. You are telling me that user data is only worth 20 cents per person, even when they invaded your privacy and trust.
This is not justice, this is a corporation paying off the government "since they got caught". I bet they made more profit from the sale of the data than the fine is.
Yes, I did make a logical argument there. You should post a logical response.