zlacker

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+(OP)
That seems an intentional business decision where expected value of fine < perceived benefit. $85M is little

>>hacker+j2
$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+rj
Aren't those fines inflated due to the companies having a large revenue/to make an example?

>>jackpt+Sr
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+wQ
>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.

>>gruez+nf1
I get where you're coming from, but corporations should be fined massively for bad behavior to act as a deterrent.

Personally I think that C levels should automatically be disbarred if the corporation is found guilty of criminality as that puts responsibility on the people with the power to prevent it.

>>gruez+nf1
There are no crimes being committed, they've not been taken to court, judge against the US criminal code, and found guilty, after which the punitive damages are what they get fined. They merely violated the law, and were fined over that. The entire amount charged was the fine.

As for "who cares about %": every one who understands that fines that cost a company nothing, do nothing, all they say is "it'll cost you a trivial amount more to do this", turning what should be an instrument to rein in companies into simple monetary transaction that just goes on the books as an entirely expected and affordable expense.

It should be a crime, and they should have been found guilty in court over that, and the fine should be such that no matter your company's size, you can't risk running afoul of the law repeatedly. But it absolutely isn't.

>>disgru+rM1
The issue that government has is that if they’re too harsh the companies move a lot of employment/operations out of their country.

>>jackpt+Vf3
Good. If you cannot afford the price of doing business illegally, close up shop or leave. And then you will be charged as foreign company when you try to sneak your way back into doing business in the country you left with the much more fun threat of being declared illegal and your products and/or services pulled from the market.

While you thought you presented an argument against hefty fines, you actually gave the perfect reason for why they should be hefty. If illegal practices are affordable, they're not illegal. They're just the price of doing business. So make them hurt.