zlacker

>>chrono+(OP)
Called it a few days ago: >>37022827

It's baffling how many people in previous threads thought a company that gets most of its money from enterprise/business clients, will burn all their reputation by surreptitiously using client data to train their AI.

>>gruez+ch
Given the company’s history, it doesn’t seem very baffling at all…

> Zoom has agreed to pay $85 million to settle claims that it lied about offering end-to-end encryption and gave user data to Facebook and Google without the consent of users. The settlement between Zoom and the filers of a class-action lawsuit also covers security problems [0]

> Mac update nukes dangerous webserver installed by Zoom [1]

> The 'S' in Zoom, Stands for Security - uncovering (local) security flaws in Zoom's macOS client [2]

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/08/zoom-to-pay-85m-...

[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/07/silen...

[2] https://objective-see.org/blog/blog_0x56.html

>>tailsp+Fu
That seems an intentional business decision where expected value of fine < perceived benefit. $85M is little

>>hacker+Yw
$85M may be nothing to Apple, Facebook, or Google, but to Zoom it's a substantial amount. Their quarterly net income for Q1 2023 was only 15.4M.

(Even if revenue was much higher. Revenue doesn't tell you anything about how well a company can take a financial hit)

>>TheRea+6O
Aren't those fines inflated due to the companies having a large revenue/to make an example?

>>jackpt+xW
I wish, the bigger the company, the smaller the fines (proportionally) tend to be. Like slapping Google on the wrist with a $125m fine. "oh no, an amount we can make back in about an hour, whatever shall we do!"

>>TheRea+bl1
>Like slapping Google on the wrist with a $125m fine. "oh no, an amount we can make back in about an hour, whatever shall we do!"

If the specific misconduct they got caught for netted them $x, and they got fined for $5x, who cares how much % of their global revenue is? That specific crime was still a net negative for them. I'm not sure why conglomerates should be punished more harshly just because they have more revenue overall.