Amazon saved children’s voices recorded by Alexa even after parents asked for it to be deleted. Now it’s paying a $25 million fine.::“For too long, Amazon has treated children’s sensitive data as its own property,” Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay, said in a statement.

  • dunestorm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m sure if it was a $2.5bn fine, they’d be much more careful about customer privacy going forwards…

      • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Meta had been fined $1.3 billion this year by the European Union’s GDPR. Before that Amazon was fined $781 million.

        So 2.5 billion could happen, but not in the US obviously.

  • JingJang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This isn’t a “fine” to Amazon. 25 million dollars is just the cost of business.

    Make this 250 or 500 million and then… Maybe… it’s a fine.

    • Brudder Aaron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fuck it. Hit them with a couple of billion and THEN companies might stop being shitheads to basic human rights.

      • amanneedsamaid@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Totally agree. Facebook should have been absolutely crippled financially after influencing an election, but they get off scot free.

        My idea is this:

        Instead of a maximum fine being applied, you take a violation, lets say influencing an election, and you calculate how much of the corporations revenue came from that source. (i.e. Facebook messenger revenue would not count for election manipulation). Then, take a huge portion of that revenue (60%, 70%? [Depending on the violation]) and take that from their revenue. Who gives a shit if Facebook literally has to close down one of their services from lack of finances, thats what they get.

          • Fubber Nuckin'@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, something at or above 100% would be good. Even at 100% they’re still losing the cost of doing business and getting zero revenue from it which is a poor business decision.

    • Weborl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This. Fines should not be fixed at a specific amount, but rather as a percentage of the total income of the company for a year. Just as laws are regulated according to technological advances, fines must also be regulated to truly impact companies and make them think twice before breaking the law.

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This isn’t entirely correct, the $25M fine is a slap on the wrist sure, but this is a COPPA ruling, which essentially means it’s a $25M slap on the wrist and a “delete the data and change the way you’re doing shit now or else”. Nobody has gotten to the “or else” with COPPA afaik, but you’d essentially be risking daily fines until fixed and risk losing operating rights in the US entirely. Would that actually happen to Amazon? We’ll never know, because they’re going to fix it before they get there. Not worth the risk.

      This is a win. Not every ruling has to bankrupt a company, changing how they operate through legal process is a good thing. This is how regulation is formed.

      • JingJang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair enough, good reply.

        Upvoted :)

        (Maybe Lemmy will bring back some good discussions in threads like these…)

        I think the public gets fatigued when we hear about the profits these companies make and then we see these comparatively small fines.

        If this is how we “steer the vessel of regulation” then I can accept that this is a push in a better direction.

        However, I still feel that a fine in the hundreds of millions, ( not bankrupting but a “shot in the leg” versus a “slap on the wrist”), is appropriate for these very large corporations. They already weild so much political and economic power that consequences for things like this should be higher.

        In other words, let’s encourage them to operate responsibly in the first place.

        • Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah it’s definitely not satisfying, heads will never roll, but it is progress! Better than a “Woops, sorry for dumping billions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, here’s some pocket change, we’ll do it again next week” at least.

          Now the question is whether that progress is fast enough to keep up with a changing tech landscape, at the moment I don’t think so. We’re still arguing about data privacy, governments don’t have the balls to even start tackling misinformation at the source, and generative AI is a whole other beast that regulators have barely started talking about.

  • Bael422@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why even fine corporations at this point? Put the ones involved behind bars and shut the company down, liquidate their assets, and divide it to the victims when they do criminal shit.

  • Nine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fines mean legal for a price and it’s only effective if it costs more to pay it than the profit made from it

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      25% of revenue, not profits. If it was profits then the fine would likely be $0 due to creative accounting.

    • EatMyDick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lolololol 25% of profits for keeping on to recordings for too long? You people are insane. You just hate Amazon and want to stick it to them.

      The irony is none of these lemmy instances are run by companies with registrations and can do whatever the fuck they want when your data yet everyone is a okay cause pinky promise I hate Reddit too! 🤦‍♂️

      • eleitl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can somewhat trust some people with your data if there is no profit motive. You can’t trust a corporation or a government. Ever.

      • tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        25% of profits for wilfully breaching privacy law… that’s actually quite low given what creative accounting can do for profits.

        GDPR maximum fine is 4% of global turnover. Luckily for amazon it’s capped otherwise they’d be on the hook for billions.

        • EatMyDick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Christ, that type of penalty has no bearing of actual damages. They kept the data longer than another party thought was needed. The actual damage was minimal. They have a robust set of controls and are one of the better tech companies to work with in regards to child protection. A whole hell of a lot more than these lemmy instances doing literally nothing to protect childrens data.