FTC 'Failed Miserably' in Punishing Facebook With $5 Billion Fine, Democrats Say
The Federal Trade Commission, which has been investigating Facebook in the wake of its massive Cambridge Analytica scandal, has voted to approve levying a massive $5 billion fine against the social media giant, according to reporting in both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. It's the single largest fine against a tech company by the FTC to date, but its inadequacy to curtail future breaches of this sort already has progressive lawmakers furious
Facebook was aware of a fine of this magnitude potentially coming down the pike for some time, and braced for a hit between $3 billion and $5 billion. The approval vote—which reportedly split down party lines, with three Republicans voting in favor and two Democrats against—was on the higher end of the expected spectrum.
This is expected to cap the agency's investigation into the data-mining scandal that compromised up to 87 million Facebook users' personal data. The data was originally harvested using a seemingly benign quiz app on the platform but was later potentially used by Cambridge Analytica, a political consultancy, for the unrelated purpose of political ad targeting.
Both the FTC and Facebook declined to comment. [...]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday July 21 2019, @08:57PM
87% would be closer to the truth. But whatever, if you're gonna use Facebook...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 21 2019, @09:00PM (11 children)
I'd say "not bad". That's enough money to get anyone's attention. It's enough money to get investor's attention. The richest people in the world don't just laugh off amounts of money that high. It may or may not be enough to hurt some of those richest people, but they're definitely going to take notice of it.
From a legal standpoint, I'm sure that they gave Facebook "first time offender" status.
If something similar happens next year, I would fully expect that huge-ass fine to be doubled, or even tripled. If it happens AGAIN in a couple more years, then we might consider "habitual offender" status, and increase the fine proportionately.
Let's not whine too much that the fine isn't big enough. Not unless we can agree that having your head chopped off for speeding 10 mph over is reasonable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 21 2019, @09:10PM (7 children)
Who cares when the government gets the money not the victims?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 21 2019, @09:37PM (6 children)
Well - you should care. The objective here, is to discourage bad behaviour. Taking large sums of money away from any person, or group of persons, is likely to discourage that conduct that was found objectionable. That lost money, plus government oversight/supervision should help to keep everyone more honest. Unless, of course, your name is Jeffrey Epstein, and you can donate large sums of money to your jailer, in which case you can do whatever the hell you want to do.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 21 2019, @11:26PM
Take large amounts of money away from facebook and give it to the government? What have we gained?
All I see is that one of the worlds biggest manipulative and evil spying organizations just transferred funds to its boss...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 22 2019, @12:11AM (4 children)
Unless the taking of large sums is more objectionable, which apparently was the case with AC's viewpoint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @12:17AM (3 children)
How do you get that from what I said? I said give it to the victims instead of the government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @12:44AM
This is khallow, he has no shame in pursuing his own agenda.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 22 2019, @12:59AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by Acabatag on Monday July 22 2019, @03:00AM
Give it to 87,000 lawyers?
Hell no, that only encourages them.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @01:03PM
You can fine me 5 billion dollars any time. That is when you at the same time give me 5.01 billion dollars. That's how it works, dear.
(Score: 2) by ilsa on Monday July 22 2019, @03:21PM
While for a normal person that's an astounding amount of money, for Facebook it's nothing.
When a company plans for a fine like this, it's no longer a fine. It's not punative... It's just an expense. It's just a cost of doing business and won't do anything to alter their operations at all.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday July 22 2019, @08:08PM
You have $100.00 in a rather heavy bag of change. You lose 87 cents. That would get your attention?
Facebook's market capitalization is $577 Billion dollars. $5 Billion is 0.87% of that. They have already recovered their capitalization shock from the news of it.
Their net income adding up every quarter for the last five years was in the neighborhood of $50 Billion. Not gross profit - net income.
The real question is: What are they doing to keep data private now? The answer is: THEY ARE NOT. THAT IS HOW THEY MAKE THEIR MONEY. How do they stop from aggregating data for users who are not aware that the data has gone to Facebook. Answer: You do not know when Facebook or a different third party is the beneficiary of your data.
The really-real question is what will this do to stop their behavior? Because to me this looks like something lighter than a slap on the wrist given their size. Did it get attention? Yes. Will it cause genuine change in their culture? That would be the real measure if it worked.
From TFA:
The market already absorbed the information, Facebook already knew it was coming, so everybody financial already accounted for it and Facebook is stronger than ever. So you were saying?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 21 2019, @09:55PM (18 children)
...they should scale with wealth and assets. The whole idea of equally punishing people for equal offenses goes right out the window with flat fines, for the same reason a flat tax is regressive barbarism. A $50 speeding ticket is less than nothing to a rich man, but can set off a chain of events leading a poor family to end up homeless.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday July 21 2019, @10:38PM (15 children)
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 21 2019, @10:49PM (2 children)
That is the prevailing theory. Next question: are cops safe drivers?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday July 22 2019, @05:38PM (1 child)
I would say, they're a much safer driver than the average person on the road. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPlZu_GTp7A [youtube.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 22 2019, @10:38PM
They are "officially" taught how to speed, so it makes them safer drivers to speed all the time? There are many cops out there who never seem to do the speed limit, whether they are in patrol cars, or private vehicles. My sister was one of those, and they get away with it, because fellow officers are highly unlikely to ticket them.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday July 21 2019, @11:01PM (8 children)
You have to consider the SCALE as well. If I speed, I pass MAYBE 1000 people who in theory were very slightly less safe. Facebook effectively passed 87 million people in their 'speeding' incident.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 21 2019, @11:08PM (7 children)
I don't actually see Facebook's fine as being that out of line.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @01:14AM (6 children)
Everybody here knows your views are so narrow you qualify for medically blind disability support, no need to remind us at every occasion.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 22 2019, @02:33AM (5 children)
Narrow compared to who? I notice once again that there's this apparent complaint without anything material to the complaint. It's like you're just tiredly going through the motions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @04:14AM (4 children)
The correct term is "to what", khallow. And the answer is "to the limits defined by medical standards [wikipedia.org]". Specifically the "has 20 degrees (diameter) or less of visual field remaining" proviso.
Oh, don't be a bore, dear. Yes, we all know you are always insisting on the material.
We've gotten for quite a while your views of the material world you are living in and that you want the proper credit, or you just walk away.
Well, I'm sure you'll understand my point of view, I like to get into physical. If it makes you freak out, that's fine, le freak c'est chic.
But, come on baby, doing the motions with you is way too loco to my taste, no matter how much you swing your hips, now.
Finally, I hope you'll agree my reply is substantive even if all the matter it addresses is "no matter".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 22 2019, @04:32AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @04:45AM (2 children)
Foolish me, what was I expecting? Not a funny bone in this fellow's body.
Say khallow, then flush and that's all that is to the matter.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 22 2019, @05:01AM (1 child)
Indeed. I'm a bit surprised that we could find some common ground.
I've seen Saturday morning cartoons with better dialogue than you've been cranking out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @05:35AM
Then maybe you'll get this Pay atteshun, boy. Ah'm cuttin' but you ain't bleedin' [youtu.be]
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday July 23 2019, @06:05PM (2 children)
"Unfair" is the regressive nature of fixed fines. Why should the same penalty hurt one person more than another?
I say make the penalties hurt the same, no matter your financial status.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 24 2019, @01:49PM (1 child)
What's unfair about that? Don't do it and you don't get the hurtful penalty. Zero penalty in the law abiding situation would be the same level of hurt for everyone.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday July 24 2019, @05:30PM
Obviously you don't punish the law abiding person (that never happens, does it?). But we're not talking about that, we're talking about what happens AFTER the law has been broken, and the perp found guilty.
It's unfair due to how the same penalty for an infraction (say $1000 for example) can cause massive financial pain for a poor sod living paycheck to paycheck, but cause no pain at all for the wealthy asshole. The poor guy will likely learn that lesson, but the rich guy won't.
Instead of $1000, how about 100 hours of community service?
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @04:46PM
Billionaire CEOs may live longer than the poor but not 100 times more for now. And even if they could live 100x longer, a few years in prison is likely to still be more a deterrent a $5 billion fine to their company.
As for complicated and murky chains of responsibility you might be surprised how much clearer the chains of responsibility become once people start ending up in prison. Evidence and documentation might even start showing up...
If the company is going to pay the fine and you're not even threatened with prison why bother saying anything? You still get your $$$$$, your boss still gets his $$$$$$$, everyone happy, business as usual.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday July 23 2019, @04:21PM
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” - Anatole France
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @12:30PM
When the state demands surveillance and companies do it, and then the companies pay the state, it isn't a fine. It's a dividend.
Of course congress will complain. That is how they conceal the fact that the entire thing is a fucking put on.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday July 22 2019, @01:50PM
I don't like Facebook any more than I like Microsoft.
I find it amusing that Republicans were all upset about breaking up Microsoft. This was a company that clearly had become far too powerful and needed to be broken up. Further the court process had already happened. The judge could have kept his mouth shut better until the verdict had been officially published. But the bigger deal was that George W Bush came into office, and his AG, Asscroft, dropped the prosecution because it was "without merit".
But which party now thinks that all "big tech" is evil and should be broken up?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Monday July 22 2019, @04:34PM (1 child)
Can anyone explain to me why this is not a criminal case?
How is spying on millions of people and then selling the details secretly off the back of a truck not a criminal offense?
Surely this money was earned illegally, but how can 5+++++ billion in damages have been done and yet no one has commited a criminal act?
And if anyone says 'well you should have known your password and private messages and posts limited to your friends would be sold out to the highest bidder and used to manipulate your political representation' I'm going to ignore you and think you are unintelligent or paid by very rich people to spout nonsense.
Facebook is a cult. Zionism is a cult. Weinstein, Zuckerberg and Epstein (and silverstein, saban, adelson, aipac, adl) are all part of it, deal with this unpleasant reality or you are going to shred the entire dictionary and legal code trying to dance around it. And allow them to divide the united states and EU with their tricks, thereby fucking up your jobs royally to the extent that you sword an oath to defend your country.
And someone please for the love of all that is good, stop the NSA from sharing data(of all the world) with these racist nutjobs. Frankly it doesn't matter how much zuckberg is allowed to spy until this is changed.
Zuckerberg for Jail, end the american-zionist alliance, now. Or you are really risking ending america. Or does that flag on your uniform have some different secret meaning no one told me about the thousand times I had to recite the pledge of allegiance?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 22 2019, @08:02PM
Can anyone explain to me why this is not a criminal case?
How is spying on millions of people and then selling the details secretly off the back of a truck not a criminal offense?
Happy to help out.
The reason this is not a criminal case, and is being settled "on the cheap" with Facebook facing little more than a one-off operating expense, is because their butt-buddy is in the White House. Cambridge Analytica and Facebook helped elect Trump by spreading mis-information--did you really expect this administration to come down on them? Quite the opposite, something along these lines no doubt happened:
Trump Administration: "That's a mightly nice company you have there. Be a shame if something happened to it. We need you to allow (insert new name for Cambridge Analytica Goonsquad here)"
FB: But you got us into trouble last time!
Trump Administration: "Pay up $5billion and prepare the way for us to capture 2020, or something bad might happen to you and your company."
FB: Here ya go boss!