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.

  • Pope-King Joe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    101 year ago

    25 million? They made $514 billion in net sales last year. 25mil is a fucking rounding error for them.

  • @Coreidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    211 year ago

    I remember when people were trying to convince me that Alexa wasn’t recording every thing you said. Now here we are.

  • @JingJang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1001 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      381 year ago

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

      • @JingJang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        Agreed.

        I only mentioned my range because then perhaps it would move to a different column in their budget.

        25 million is nothing to Amazon.

        A couple of billion might move it into an enterily new spreadsheet and maybe even precipitate a meeting to figure out who needs to be fired. Maybe.

        • kamenLady.
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          Amazon makes between $53 million and $54 million an hour. This is the first Google search result, but even if it’s exaggerated, 25 million doesn’t even leave the tiniest mark… It’s sad…

          Lol, my life would be over, if i were to be fined 25 million

    • Weborl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 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.

    • @average650@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -21 year ago

      It does depend on how many violations there were. If it was 1, then that’s a hefty fine. If it’s a million, then yes… Cost of business.

      • @JingJang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        That’s not how laws work.

        If you break the law, you deal with the consequences.

        It’s not a “game system” where additional infractions lead to multipliers of consequences.

        Child labor laws exist because we saw what happened in the past when they did not exist. We, as a society, care about our children enough to protect them. That includes preventing them, by law, from working in industrial environments.

        Some states seem inclined to repeat the past by repealing or loosening child labor laws… .

        Now another child is dead as a result.

        • gian
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          It’s not a “game system” where additional infractions lead to multipliers of consequences.

          Not really. If you commit more times the crime, you can end with a sentence that is more than the one for a single crime.

          I mean, in the US you can get X life sentences (ok, it is only facade at this point) when just 1 is enough in any case.

    • @Aldrond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      It shouldn’t be a fine at all. It should be jailtime for executives involved, and asset seizure.

      • gian
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        That is the solution.

        And before the usual story “but companies are not people and you cannot punish people for things a company did”: in the end, in a company there is always someone that make a decision. It is too easy to commit a crime and then say “but the company did it”.

        • @Aldrond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          It’s how they always hide, and they won’t ever stop until we hold them accountable. By law or otherwise.

  • @dunestorm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19
    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…

  • Nine
    link
    fedilink
    English
    121 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

  • @Mdotaut801@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    151 year ago

    Cost of doing business that was already put in this years’ projections. Bezos can pay for this small fine out of his change jar and we’ll continue on, business as usual.

    • @EatMyDick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -231 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! 🤦‍♂️

      • gian
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        A penalty should be something you want to avoid. A 25 million (occasional) fine for Amazon is like asking me to pay a .25 (occasional) fine for, say, no parking. It has no deterrence.

        On the other hand, a percentual on the profits is a lot more deterrent, expecially for a company. Maybe 25% is too much, I agree, but let’s say a 2-5% of the profits is not that bad.

        Note that a fine that is a percentual of your profits (or income) is far more balanced because it hurts the small and the big company the same way.

      • @eleitl@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 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.

  • @Bael422@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 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.

  • @foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    01 year ago

    That fine for them is like a trip to McDonald’s for me in terms of worth.

    I think. Math might be off. But like 25 bucks assuming Amazon is worth $1T

  • @bearr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 year ago

    Fines like this should be calculated based on % of corporations net assets. Something like this, say 5-10%. That would at least get their attention.

    Same with personal fines honestly, percentage of income or total wealth, depending on the crime.

    • @MisterFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Definitely should be based on current net worth of assets, else someone who just lives off borrowings against assets pays nothing as they have no or little income when compared to their total.

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Or just count loans as income for tax reasons.

        • @MisterFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          This could get iffy unless well defined. Else when people take out a loan for a house suddenly they have hundreds of thousands in income, which they would then need to pay tax on again when they earn money to pay it back.

          • FuglyDuck
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            You don’t generally pay taxes paying a loan back.

            What they do is take out more loans- specifically, on the increase of value their capital had.

            You do pay taxes on the sale of the house when that comes, however, in proportion to the capital gains from its sale.

            It wouldn’t be hard to carve out an exception for loans under a certain value (possibly, a net cap on total loans. Or some combination there of.) and then exclude mortgages under an appropriate limit, however

            • @MisterFrog@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Yeah that’s my thinking. Gotta define what cash from loans is taxable.

              What I mean by paying tax on paying it back: you had to earn that money, typically from income, which is taxed. So if you had to pay tax on your original loan you would get taxed twice.

              But yeah, as long as it’s well-defined, might be a good choice.

              I’m sure the billionaires will line the correct pockets to get out of it in any country, though :(