• AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    8 months ago

    "customers’ real-time location information, revealing where they go and who they are.”

    All of them did it. That either means collusion or they’re all evil and bold enough to do this despite the risk. Either way, this was not an accidental slip up or a hack. Jail time and a crippling fine is the solution. This is neither.

    • blackbrook@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      That amount of evil and bold has simply become the norm for corporations, so that seems a no-brainer, collusion is not needed.

    • SolidGrue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Or participated in a Black program that paid enough to cover the risk of fines

        • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          You aren’t, but it’s likely some people have 2 or even 3 cell network connected devices (phone, tablet, watch, car, etc). As that articles notes it’s SIM cards not people. Not that $1.50 is any better…

          Also, that $3.50 was a South Park joke.

          • QualifiedKitten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Oh, I definitely got the South Park reference!

            I just got curious about the math anyway, then very, very angry. Another source indicated something like 300 million people with cell phones in the country, but it wasn’t clear how many of those are customers of the affected carriers.

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well, you can sue them directly… Or you could, if you can show that you have standing. That means if they shared your specific personal information illegally then you could sue them. If you’re lucky, some blood sucking lawyers will do the leg work and find out the details. Then they’ll file a class action lawsuit against these companies and we’ll all get emails saying, “You may be eligible for compensation! Come to our website and give us a bunch of private information so we can see if you are owed big bucks! Oh, and we promise we wont sell your information, you can trust us!”

      And the cycle of life goes on…

    • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      8 months ago

      Or better yet, do that and also prison time for all the criminals who were involved in the planning of this crime.

      Hiding behing an LLC shouldn’t prevent criminals from going to prison.

      • Kill_John_Lennon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        If I take the example of T-Mobile their fine (80 M$) is 8 days of net income based on their average net income of the past 4 years.

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Evidence that the tiktok ban is not about privacy. It’s ok when our corporations do it

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      They never claimed it to be about privacy from American corporations. That’s why divestment to an American ownership is an option in the bill. They don’t want tremendous amounts of American user data to be collected by a company beholden to the Chinese government.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        But that’s the thing. US corporations are sure as hell to continue that same data collection and sell it. China does bulk data buys from US social media companies. The ban does not in any way do anything to prevent the Chinese government from obtaining that data. It’s extremely obvious cold war political nonsense.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s aggregated or ad-driven data. That’s very different than a psychographic profile, like what Meta or TikTok has on individuals. Meta can’t sell your psychographic profile or personal data to a foreign entity. They can sell metrics that represent your interests, or aggregated data that includes you in the sample group.

          • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            With enough aggregate data points to the intersectional interests of enough people, anyone is capable of identifying individuals. The “anonymous data” that is legal to sell is trivially de-anonymized. This has been known for nearly a decade, US privacy laws have failed to update privacy standards in light of this, and companies tend towards the optimal and cost effective solution (read: cheapest and minimum required).

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              That’s true, but there still a very big difference between aggregated data on ad-driven models and individualized psychographic profiles. The latter is terrifying and should not even exist. However, the US government is ok with them as long as they reside in the possession of US businesses.

              For those of you unfamiliar with the insane detail of psychographic profiling, there’s a very accessible documentary on Netflix called “The Social Dilemma” that is worth the watch. For those who are unaware of how psychographic profiling can influence perceptions of the world, there’s another called “The Great Hack” about Cambridge Analytica’s influence on Brexit and the 2016 US election. Both are narrated and written by experts in their respective fields.

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Oh, it’s absolutely not. We’re in full agreement there. Congress never said it was about privacy. They said it was about keeping US citizens from the influence of hostile foreign nations.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        How much do you think they made off selling your data?

        This is just the government’s cut. Cost to play,

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Because tiktok has not done anything criminal and being forced to divest, while this fine is likely a fraction of the profits these companies made.