zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. pvaran+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-01-06 01:07:04
They are already known to not be in compliance with many laws that already exist.
replies(2): >>ajsnig+y3 >>cwkoss+d9
◧
2. ajsnig+y3[view] [source] 2022-01-06 01:32:01
>>pvaran+(OP)
We need enforcement, and we need fines high enough, to make this not worth it.
replies(2): >>bigjim+I5 >>lmkg+Ws
◧◩
3. bigjim+I5[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-01-06 01:47:06
>>ajsnig+y3
Fines? How about prison time for stalking?
replies(1): >>sodali+gj
◧
4. cwkoss+d9[view] [source] 2022-01-06 02:14:11
>>pvaran+(OP)
Which ones?
◧◩◪
5. sodali+gj[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-01-06 03:21:23
>>bigjim+I5
Exactly. Always read "fines" as "business expenses" if it's in this context. Especially w.r.t FAANG, in which case it's laughably small business expenses. Occasionally they'll be serious but never enough..
◧◩
6. lmkg+Ws[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-01-06 04:44:42
>>ajsnig+y3
Whatsapp (owned by Facebook) was fined 225 million Euros for GDPR violations, the largest GDPR fine to date. Of that, 75 million was specifically for harvesting info from contact lists.
replies(2): >>durnyg+UD >>Nextgr+011
◧◩◪
7. durnyg+UD[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-01-06 06:35:06
>>lmkg+Ws
> harvesting info from contact lists

I'm certain LinkedIn was doing it as well, ie. dark patterns to upload contact list then aggressively harvesting new users.

◧◩◪
8. Nextgr+011[view] [source] [discussion] 2022-01-06 10:07:23
>>lmkg+Ws
It appears it's nowhere near enough though. Not to mention, Facebook (the main beneficiary of all the illicit data collection) gets away scot-free.
[go to top]