- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
By "respond", Facebook means that they will try not to get caught making $s from selling sucker's data again and the courts and the ICO will let them off with a slap on the wrist.
Facebook fined by toothless data watchdog
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
You really did not expect anything else did you?
All these agencies, Information Commissioner's Office, Ofcom and the like were set up by government to give us plebs the impression that they actually care, but of course they gave them little power and they do little but issue statements and very very occasionally, if allowed, issue a paltry fine.
All these agencies, Information Commissioner's Office, Ofcom and the like were set up by government to give us plebs the impression that they actually care, but of course they gave them little power and they do little but issue statements and very very occasionally, if allowed, issue a paltry fine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
In just Q4 2017 FB's revenue was $40 Billion. I'm sure they will be counting the pennies after this. 
Just to add though:
That's the maximum fine allowed under the Data Protection Act 1998. If the GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018 had been in force when it happened, the fine could have been up to £379 million or 4% of global turnover.
That's the maximum fine allowed under the Data Protection Act 1998. If the GDPR/Data Protection Act 2018 had been in force when it happened, the fine could have been up to £379 million or 4% of global turnover.
Because it is a relatively small fine for a company like Facebook.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,433
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
But thats irrelevant because its the maximum they can do, the fine isn't based on size of company or turnover.
I guess it was never really envisioned it would need to be applied to companies the size of FB, its normally small companies who fail in this sort of thing as they often fail to understand the requirements.
If they tried to apply more, Fb would take it to court and win, quite clearly.
Only option would be to retrospectively change the law which is very very very rarely ever done in the UK. typically changes looking back to old laws are handled with things like pardons as they normally only take place in regards individuals.
However as pointed out, in future the fine would be much more significant (potentially)
The largest fine is a drop in the ocean to big companies and they will spend years arguing it. At one stage (not sure about now) Microsoft saw EU fines as a business expense.
This is particularly relevant. Had this happened today, Facebook would be facing a terrifying fine under legislation enacted across all of Europe. I think they have no option but to take this seriously, even if the fine in this case is small fry for them. They absolutely cannot afford to slip up again with the hammer of gdpr ready to fall on them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,636
Oh wow.... 500k..... sure that's really going to concern Facebook.
As others have said in past and i'll say it again for 100000th time. Fines need to be based on a percentage.... not a flat rate.
Look at current ram price fixing going on. They will probably be fined but the fine will be way less than the profit they've made from doing it, so they will just do it again and consider the fines a business expense.
As others have said in past and i'll say it again for 100000th time. Fines need to be based on a percentage.... not a flat rate.
Look at current ram price fixing going on. They will probably be fined but the fine will be way less than the profit they've made from doing it, so they will just do it again and consider the fines a business expense.
Fines are now based on %, but this fine relates to something that happend before GDPR was in place.
The fact is that if they do it again, they can face constant fines of their revenue until they stop, eventually it may occur that other nations/blocs take this view and make similar legislation. Perhaps this legislation will also be emulated in other realms (hopefully), like media telling lies or other unfair consumer policies that seem to pervade (usually from the likes of Apple).
What are you waffling about - it is absolutely relevant as far as calling them "toothless" is concerned. They want to punish Facebook for their actions yet the biggest fine they could apply (pre-GDPR) barely takes a bite out of them. The fact the fine isn't relative to the size of the company or turnover just emphasises the point here.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
As I pointed out in my opening post, "The ICO intends to fine Facebook £500,000".
Aside from the fact that £½million is peanuts to Facebook, the chances are that they will either pay a lot less or nothing at all. Either way, it will be significantly less than they will pay some PR agency to tell the worlds that they are actually good guys and that they only have your best interests at the forefront of their thougts each and every day - except on Sundays when they are singing hymns.
Until such time as senior staff at organisations such as Facebook, Google, et al get to spend time sewing mailbags they will continue to exploit loopholes in legislation in order to sell your identity to the highest or latest bidder.
Incidentally, it was never Parliament's intention that either the Data Protection Registrar or the Information Commissioner should have the power to limit the money making opportunities of "Entrepreneurs", they had to pay lip service to Data Protection in order to appease the EU.
Aside from the fact that £½million is peanuts to Facebook, the chances are that they will either pay a lot less or nothing at all. Either way, it will be significantly less than they will pay some PR agency to tell the worlds that they are actually good guys and that they only have your best interests at the forefront of their thougts each and every day - except on Sundays when they are singing hymns.
Until such time as senior staff at organisations such as Facebook, Google, et al get to spend time sewing mailbags they will continue to exploit loopholes in legislation in order to sell your identity to the highest or latest bidder.
Incidentally, it was never Parliament's intention that either the Data Protection Registrar or the Information Commissioner should have the power to limit the money making opportunities of "Entrepreneurs", they had to pay lip service to Data Protection in order to appease the EU.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,433
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
What are you waffling about - it is absolutely relevant as far as calling them "toothless" is concerned. They want to punish Facebook for their actions yet the biggest fine they could apply (pre-GDPR) barely takes a bite out of them. The fact the fine isn't relative to the size of the company or turnover just emphasises the point here.
Because if you look at the other 2 main parties listed the following are advised :
a criminal prosecution for SCL Elections Ltd for failing to properly deal with the ICO’s Enforcement Notice, hardly toothless
an Enforcement Notice for Aggregate IQ to stop processing retained data belonging to UK citizens, imagine if this was applied to facebook
Neither of which are toothless. Particularly the criminal prosecution, that is a real issue for any company and potentially the directors
facebook were a minor party in this and hence they had the smaller action taken against them.
The link which it helps if people read as opposed to just going with the headlines
https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/ne...n-into-data-analytics-in-political-campaigns/
Also, lastly "Today’s progress report gives details of some of the organisations and individuals under investigation, as well as enforcement actions so far."
But the comment wasn't about the other parties, it was about the regulator applying a fine to Facebook. The OP posted his opinion that they're toothless and in this context it is quite easy to see why he holds that view. I don't know why you're putting in so much effort to try and conflate the matter or argue against the OP simply voicing an opinion.