cross-posted from google@lemdro.id
- Google will pay $93M to settle a privacy lawsuit in California for violating consumer protection laws.
- The company was found to have engaged in deceptive practices related to collecting Android users' location data without proper consent.
- Users believed disabling "Location History" would stop tracking, but another setting, "Web & App Activity," remained enabled.
- As part of the settlement, Google will improve user-friendly account controls and be more transparent about data collection practices.
- This follows similar lawsuits and fines against Google for privacy violations in other jurisdictions.
8 Comments
Kalkaline@programming.dev · 31 pts · 2y
TheaoneAndOnly27@kbin.social · 14 pts · 2y
Fuck me. If it was 10,000 that payout would be the equivalent of .53 cents. Wow.
bentel@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
Cost of doing business!
tal@kbin.social · 6 pts · 2y
That ratio doesn't matter.
What matters is the value derived from some prohibited activity relative to the fine/lawsuits resulting from that activity.
Let's say that Company A sells oranges, and uses some pesticide that isn't approved, and gets a fine for it.
Let's say that Company B sells apples, and improperly claimed that the apples were fresher than they were to grocery stores and is sued for that.
Let's say that Company A and Company B merge and form Company C. The value of Company C would be larger, but it would make no sense for either of the above two disincentives to be larger. Being part of Company C doesn't make engaging in bad behavior more-desirable than it does for when A and B were separate, and so the disincentives one establishes for bad behavior shouldn't grow either.
Kalkaline@programming.dev · 5 pts · 2y
piecat@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 2y
Let's say company C pooled their resources to pay for lawyers that could reduce the penalty to a profitable level, but A and B couldn't individually.
spwyll@lemdro.id · 1 pts · 2y
The ratio does matter. The fine is supposed to be a punishment/disincentive, but when that disincentive is less than trivial it no longer disincentivizes. Like a crime punishable by a $250 fine--the working class will follow the law because that's three days' but the rich won't care because it's a glass of wine at a decent restaurant. Google will simply pay the fine with no reason or intent to stop the questionable behavior because they'll just pay the trivial fine again when they get caught--just like they've been doing for years...
chardiemacdennis@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2y
Who gets that money?
remotelove@lemmy.ca · 15 pts · 2y
The lawyers, usually.
Francis_Fujiwara@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 2y
that's why use a phone with Calyx OS.